Vinay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ghurelal Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Bazar Para Balua v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.17 18:06:48 +0530 CRMP No. 2233 of 2025 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ghurelal Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Bazar Para Balua, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli (U.P.), Present Address Ward No. 13, Surangpaani, Police Station Piparchhedi District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, Office Address Commandent 669 Leh Ladakh (J And K) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Suryapratap Yuddhhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondents
Legal Reasoning
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. In the well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under 8 Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 13. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the 9 F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 15. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. 16. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu
Arguments
: Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr.Suryapratap Yuddhhveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer 2 appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “1. This honourable Court may please be kind enough in quashing the First Information Report registered in crime no.07/2025 dated 04.01.2025 at police station Mujgahan, District Raipur (C.G) with subsequent Charge-sheet no.25/2025 dated 04.03.2025 offence under section 64of the B.N.S, as well as the entire criminal proceeding before the Ld. Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in the Session Case No. 174/2025 against the petitioner in the larger interest of justice. 2. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to be kind enough in quashing & setting aside the Order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Ld Judical Magistrate First Class Raipur, by which cognizance of the offence's u/s 64 of the B.N.S, against the petitioner. 3. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to be kind enough in quashing & setting aside the Order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in the Session Case No. 174/ 2025, by which the Ld. Court had framed Charge against the petitioner. 4. This honourable Court may please be kind enough in granting any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant made a written complaint on 26.12.2024 at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District 3 Durg alleging that Vinay Jaiswal S/o Ghurelal Jasiwal has established physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage. On the basis of said report, the police has registered the FIR in Crime No. 07/2025 at Mujgahan Police Station, Raipur on 04.01.2025 for the offence under Section 64 of the BNS against the present petitioner. 4. The fact of the case is that the complainant was preparing for the Civil Service Examination. During this period, the complainant and the petitioner met on social media through mobile and they both started conversation for almost year and half & they came in love relationship. The petitioner already told her that he is already a married person and the complainant made no issue regarding this, therefore, the petitioner asked her to meet, so the complainant agreed to meet the petitioner & fix the place to meet in Raipur. The petitioner & the complainant met at Railway Station Raipur & went to the petitioner place in K.S Vihar Santoshi Nagar as they discussed on phone & after her consent, they had physical relation for the first time in Raipur, thereafter the complainant & the petitioner started to meet on many occasions and had physical relations because they started to love each other. 5. On 02.10.2024 the complainant asked the petitioner to come at her residence at Padmanabhipur, Durg to have physical relation. After that on many occasions & dates the complainant and the petitioner met at her own place in Padmansabhpur, Durg. On 4 30.10.2024, when the petitioner and the complainant were spending time with each other at the complainant place, suddenly her cousin sister reached there, then the complainant introduced the petitioner and tells her to call the petitioner as brother-in-law. Thereafter the petitioner and the complainant's sister talked for a long time and after that the petitioner left. The phone conversations with the complainant were always about love and romance & during this time, the complainant started pressurizing the petitioner to marry her and to take her with him, but the petitioner already told her that he is already married & he cannot marry her, so she started threatening him to marry her, otherwise she will file a rape case against him. Due to this, the quarrel started between the complainant & the petitioner and at last the petitioner stopped talking to her & blocked her phone. Thereafter the complainant makes a false allegation against the petitioner that he did physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage before the concerned police station. 6. The petitioner preferred an anticipatory bail being MCRCA No.204/2025 before this Court and on 06.02.2025 this Court has granted bail to the petitioner on material grounds that upon the perusal of the victims statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that the victim is of 30 years who contacted the petitioner through social media for approximately for 18 months prior to the incident which shows her consent. 7. The present petitioner has been wrongly and maliciously 5 implicated in the matter, therefore this petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR No. 7/2025 dated 04.01.2025, Final Report No.25/ 2025, Charge-Sheet dated 04.03.2025 and the charge framed on dated 17.06.2025 (ΑΝNEXURE P-1 & P-2) & all other related proceedings pertaining to the present petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima facie case of rape is made out. The FIR narrative suggests that the complainant was in continuous contact with the petitioner for months and had consensual sexual relations on multiple occasions. A long-term relationship and repeated meetings after alleged incidents show ongoing consent, not coercion. The Supreme Court has clarified that sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage is not rape unless the promise was false from the very beginning. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident first occurred in July 2024, but the FIR was lodged only in December 2024, almost 5 months later. Such a delay creates doubt about the genuineness of the complaint and is a relevant ground for quashment of the FIR. He contended that this appears to be a case of consensual relationship gone sour, where Section 64 BNS (rape) is being misused to exert pressure or seek revenge when the relationship failed. if proven, this can be considered misuse of law and criminal process. No medical evidence, supporting witnesses (besides the complainant's friend), or contemporannous documents (such as messages or photos) are immediately 6 evident in support of the rape allegation. Mere allegations, without corroboration, are weak grounds for a criminal trial. He further contended that the FIR shows that the complainant willingly visited and stayed with the petitioner on multiple dates. She even introduced him as her future husband to relatives and maintained communication till December 2024 which contradicts the claim of sexual exploitation. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings deserve to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie offence and from perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, 7 where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not