Dauram Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohtara, P.S. Lavan District v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pallari District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh 2
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.07 16:31:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:30432-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2077 of 2025 Dauram Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohtara, P.S. Lavan District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pallari District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh 2 - Victim/complainant (Details Are Enclosed In A Sealed Envelope) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 04.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: 2 “I. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. dated 07.02.2024 bearing crime no. registered at P.S. Pallari District Baloda Bazar 91/2024 (C.G.) for offence punishable under section 376, 420, 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. II. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet (Annexure P-1), filed on 03.04.2024 before the learned Special Judge (ST/SC) District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) against the petitioner. III. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 06.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in criminal case no. Special Case (ST/SC) 06/2024 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. IV. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the framing of charges for offence punishable under section 376(2)(n),420,494,506 Part-II of I.P.C. and u/s 3(2) (n) and Section 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in criminal case no. Special Case (ST/SC) 06/2024 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the Petitioner is legally wedded husband of the respondent no.2, their marriage was 3 solemnized on 19/09/2023 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur District Raipur and they have one son born out of their wedlock named Dipesh Yadav who is aged about 2 years. After some time, the relation between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 became sour and in order to take revenge and harass the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has lodged the F.I.R. on 07.02.2024 before the P.S. Pallari District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) which has been registered as Crime No. 91/2024 under Section 376, 420, 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and stated that the petitioner had married her forcefully and abused her. Subsequently the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under section 376, 420, 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the learned Special Judge (ST/SC), District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Case (SC/ST) No. 06/2024 and order of taking cognizance dated 06.04.2024 and framing of charges on 25.04.2024, the petitioner prefer the instant criminal petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution is bad in law, and liable to be quashed. The respondent No.2/wife has also preferred an application under section 144 of B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance acknowledging the fact that the petitioner is her legally wedded husband, therefore the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has unfortunately become strained, but the petitioner 4 maintains that the marriage was legal, consensual, and binding under the law. Further, there is no prior complaint or any evidence of the alleged abuse, coercion, or forceful marriage has been produced by the respondent to substantiate her allegations. The lack of physical evidence or medical documentation supporting the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 further undermines the credibility of her claims. Also, the false and malicious allegations made by the respondent No. 2 are part of a larger scheme to harass, defame, and humiliate the petitioner. Lastly, the legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act are being misused by the respondent to harass him, tarnish his reputation, and cause unnecessary legal and mental distress. 5. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial has started and 07 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. Learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections376(2)(n), 420, 494, 506 Part-II of I.P.C. and u/s 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of 5 charge-sheet goes to show that the complainant came to the police station and submitted a written complaint that the accused- Dauram Yadav, does the work of exorcising. In the year 2015, due to complainant’s father's ill health, Dauram Yadav was called to the house for exorcising. Dauram Yadav saw the complainant at that time and asked her to marry him, but the complainant refused to marry him many times, then he said that he would not make her father happy and if she marry someone else, he would kill complainant’s future husband by doing black magic and started threatening her, due to which, she got very scared and did not say anything, then the accused took the complainant from her house in village Amera to Arya Samaj Mandir Raipur on 19.09.2023 and knowing that she is a girl of Scheduled Caste, forcibly married her and he gave a false affidavit in Arya Samaj Mandir saying that he is unmarried. Later, the complainant came to know that he is already married and he has two children and he kept her separately in Amera and got her aborted. Complainant further told that currently she is 05 months pregnant, who now does not want to keep the child and saying that she is of low Chamar caste, he abused the complainant, insulted her and threw her out. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, trial has 6 already been started and 07 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses the fact that the petitioner being a married man, hid this fact and married the complainant and further got her aborted and assaulted her knowing well that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet