Pawan Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lemru, District Korba (C.G.)

Judgment

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No. 34/2025 registered on 22.11.2025 at Police Station Lemru, District Korba for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet bearing No. 37/2025 dated 28.12.2025, the order dated 27.06.2026 whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, and the entire consequential criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 6056/2026, on the ground that the criminal prosecution is malicious, an abuse of the process of law, and does not disclose the commission of the alleged offences.

2. The petitioner has filed the present CRMP seeking for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the

petition and quash the registration of FIR No. 34/2025 in P.S. Lemru, District Korba (C.G.) dated 22.11.2025, Charge-sheet No. 37/2025 dated 28.12.2025, taking cognizance of offences u/s 69, 351(3) of B.N.S. dated 27.06.2026 (Criminal Case No. 6056/2025) pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Korba (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2 lodged a written complaint on 22.11.2025 alleging that the petitioner, who is her brother-in-law (devar), had established physical relations with her on the false promise of marrying her and had subjected her to sexual intercourse on several occasions from June, 2025 till

28.10.2025. It was further alleged that at the request of the petitioner, the complainant had accompanied him to Satranga, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The complainant further alleged 3 that despite repeated requests, the petitioner declined to marry her and stopped responding to her phone calls. She also stated that although a legal notice was issued by her to the petitioner on 20.08.2025 and thereafter an agreement/compromise was executed between them on

24.08.2025, the petitioner, on 28.10.2025 at about 3:00 a.m., trespassed into her house, again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 34/2025 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, where cognizance was taken and Criminal Case No. 6056/2026 is presently pending. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of about six months in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. It is further submitted that admittedly both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are married persons, the petitioner having one child and the complainant having three children, and, therefore, the allegation that the physical relationship was established on the promise of marriage is inherently 4 improbable and does not constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further argued that the petitioner and the complainant are close relatives, being brother-in-law (devar) and sister-in-law (bhabhi), and there existed family disputes between them. According to the learned counsel, the complainant had earlier issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 20.08.2025, pursuant to which the parties entered into a compromise on 24.08.2025, agreeing not to interfere in each other's affairs. Thereafter, the complainant allegedly started demanding money from the petitioner, and apprehending false implication, the petitioner submitted a written complaint before the concerned police authorities on 20.11.2025, i.e., prior to the registration of the impugned FIR. ******* Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2 has previously levelled similar allegations against other persons, resulting in registration of criminal cases, one of which ended in acquittal of the accused, while in another case proceedings are pending. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 has been convicted in another criminal case, which, according to the petitioner, reflects upon her conduct. On the strength of these circumstances, it is urged that the present prosecution is actuated by malice and has been instituted only to harass the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of the prosecutrix 5 recorded during the course of investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023. It is submitted that after a thorough investigation, sufficient material was found against the petitioner and, accordingly, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court, where cognizance has already been taken.

6. Learned State counsel further submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to delay in lodging the FIR, the relationship between the parties, the alleged compromise, previous complaints lodged by the prosecutrix, and the defence set up by the petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence during trial. It is contended that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Since the allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, no case for quashment of the FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings is made out. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition.

8. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is no longer res integra. The power 6 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), is of an extraordinary nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of cases to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that at the stage of considering a prayer for quashment of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. Interference is warranted only where the allegations contained in the FIR or the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Conversely, if the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence, the Court would ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent jurisdiction and permit the prosecution to proceed in accordance with law.

9. In Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been observed that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the material collected during investigation. Though the inherent power under Section 482 of 7 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is of wide amplitude, such power is required to be exercised with great caution and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court has further held that at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.), the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and not whether the allegations are likely to result in conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the governing principles to be borne in mind while considering a prayer for quashment of an FIR or criminal proceedings as follows: “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 8 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based 9 on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be 10 applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such 11 an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.”

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) has reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for quashing criminal proceedings is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional cases where continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. It has been held that at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing, the High Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. 12

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact, assess the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, or examine the probable defence of the accused, as such matters fall within the domain of the trial Court. It has been further observed that where the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected supporting material, criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold merely because the accused disputes the prosecution case or raises a plausible defence. The Apex Court has also reiterated the principles laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, holding that quashing on the basis of defence material is permissible only where such material is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains unimpeached, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) observed that: “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions 13 contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

12. From a perusal of the impugned FIR (Annexure P/1), it is apparent that respondent No. 2 has made specific, detailed and categorical allegations against the petitioner. The FIR discloses that the petitioner, 14 who is the brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant, established physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her and continued to subject her to sexual intercourse on several occasions from June, 2025 till 28.10.2025. It is further alleged that on the repeated insistence of the petitioner, the complainant accompanied him to Satranga, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The complainant has also alleged that when she insisted upon marriage, the petitioner refused to marry her and stopped responding to her phone calls. The FIR further reveals that although a legal notice was issued by the complainant to the petitioner on 20.08.2025 and a compromise was subsequently entered into between them on 24.08.2025, the petitioner, on 28.10.2025 at about 3:00 a.m., allegedly trespassed into the complainant's house, again subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thus, the allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, warranting registration of the crime and investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the correctness, reliability or otherwise of the allegations, as the same are matters to be tested on the basis of evidence during the course of trial.

13. Having considered the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against 15 the petitioner. The FIR contains specific and categorical allegations that the petitioner, who is the complainant's brother-in-law (devar), established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse and, on 28.10.2025, entered her house during the night, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her with dire consequences. The investigation culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thus, the allegations, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences.

14. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the marital status of the parties, the alleged compromise dated 24.08.2025, the previous complaints allegedly lodged by the complainant against other persons, the petitioner's complaint apprehending false implication, and the plea that the present prosecution is malicious, are all matters pertaining to the defence of the petitioner. These contentions involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Whether the allegations are true or false, whether the compromise has any bearing on the prosecution case, and what evidentiary value is to be attached to the documents relied upon by the petitioner, are issues which can appropriately be examined by the trial Court after the parties adduce evidence. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and 16 Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Judge Chief Justice