Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44178-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2718 of 2025 Akash Sharma S/o Manishankar Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o 102, Ward No. 9, Ram Nagar, Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. XYZ (Complainant) Nil ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.03 11:12:29 +0530 respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the 2 following prayers: “(i) Quash the impugned FIR dated 05.08.2025 bearing Crime No. 418 of 2025 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (ii) Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2025, the victim lodged a written report at Police Station, Simga. It has been alleged therein that she is a married lady having two children. On 05.02.2025, she met the present petitioner, who gave her his mobile number and asked her to contact him. Thereafter, both the petitioner and the victim used to converse telephonically, and during such conversations, the petitioner is alleged to have assured her of marriage. On 25.03.2025, the petitioner came to the house of the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, the petitioner continued to have sexual relations with the victim on several occasions till 21.06.2025. Thereafter, he refused to solemnize marriage with her. Based on the said complaint, offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 were registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is a major married woman having two children, and her marriage with her husband is still subsisting. Therefore, the allegation of sexual 3 intercourse on the pretext of marriage does not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further urged that, having regard to the contents of the FIR and the conduct of the victim, it is manifest that she was a consenting party, and hence the offences as registered are not made out against the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim and her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the petitioner for settlement of the matter, and upon his refusal, they threatened to implicate him in a false and concocted case. It is further submitted that much prior to registration of the impugned FIR, on 01.08.2025, the petitioner had lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, with regard to such illegal demand of money. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of an application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and vide order dated 18.08.2025 in MCRCA No. 1245 of 2025, this Court granted him anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contends that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, it is urged that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 4 8. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide. Similarly, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, it was held that a prima facie case prevents quashing, though patently absurd allegations may be quashed. Further, in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court emphasized that Courts cannot probe the reliability of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that probabilities of the prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at the quashing stage. 9. Applying the above principles, the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be examined at this stage. Adjudication of factual disputes, evaluation of evidence, or assessment of credibility does not fall within the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or 5 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On the material on record, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the accused. FIRs or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions. 10. Further, a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner of establishing physical relations with the victim on repeated occasions on the pretext of marriage, and later refusing to marry her. These allegations prima facie disclose ingredients of the offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 11. It is a settled position of law that once an FIR discloses cognizable offences, investigation has to proceed and this Court would not ordinarily exercise its inherent powers to stifle such investigation at the threshold. The rival contentions regarding consent, subsisting marriage of the victim, and alleged demand of money are all disputed questions of fact, which require proper investigation and appreciation of evidence at the appropriate stage. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan