1 - Ajay Borikar S/o Ramdas Borikar Aged About 44 Years R/o H.No. 6615/2 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of P.S. Newai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.18 11:39:00 +0530 2025:CGHC:33598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 75 of 2024 1 - Ajay Borikar S/o Ramdas Borikar Aged About 44 Years R/o H.No. 6615/2, Kripal Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. Currently R/o Ds 06, B.T. P.C., N.T.P.C., Colony, Barauni, Chakia, District - Begusarai (Bihar). (Age About Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of P.S. Newai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Xyz, (Details In Enclosed Envelop). ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
:Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shivali Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt Advocate for the State/respondent no. 1. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “ It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to allow the application filed by the petitioner and kindly quash the chargesheet (final report) and entire criminal proceeding ( if any) (Annexure P/1) against the present applicant. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case 3. (a) Facts of the case is that the complainant lodged a written complaint mentioning that the present petitioner used to talk with her sympathetically over the telephone and during these telephonic conversations the present applicant asked the respondent no. 2 that he has given divorce to his 1st wife and now he wants to marry her as her husband has already died and she has a daughter and she must think about the betterment of both 3 the respondent no. 2 and her daughter, on which she agreed to marry with the applicant. (b) According to the complainant, after the death of her husband she used to reside with her mother in a rented house at Resali district durg. The present applicant asked her not to invite anybody except her mother and daughter as only his parents were only invited to be a part of their marriage and no other relatives and were invited. Further she wanted to marry by practicing baudh ceremonies but he said that he only wants to marry by exchanging rings as he does not believe in these religious ceremonies. On dated 26.01.2022, the present applicant alone came to the house of the respondent no. 2, and on inquiring about the non presence of his parents, he gave excuse of their not well-being in health. On the same night around 11.30 P.M. he started to force her to make physical relation with him, when she refused to agree, he manipulated her by saying that he already considered her to be his wife and made physical relation with her. (c) On the next day i.e., on 27.01.2022, the marriage took place between them by only exchanging the wedding rings without practicing any rituals of the marriage, thereafter, she again told the present applicant that in baudh religion without performing any religion no marriage takes place and she wants to marry according to the religious practices and ceremonies. But he refused and told her that by only exchanging the wedding rings she will become his wife. In the marriage only her daughter, mother, sisters, brother 4 and other relatives of the family were present. On the same night the present applicant again made physical relation with the respondent no. 2. On 29.01.2022, the applicant went Begusarai where he uses to work in the NTPC along with the respondent no. 2 and her daughter. After reaching Begusarai he stated to doubt on the character of the respondent no. 2 and started to abuse her by using filthy language and by making forceful physical relation with her. Subsequently the respondent no. 2 gained knowledge about the previous marriage and pendency of the divorce case of the petitioner and therefore she was subjected to mental and physical torture and was left her in the railway station on 07.09.2022 by saying that he is travelling in the next train on the same date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecutrix had lodged a written complaint against the present petitioner with the delay of 10 months. She further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has stated that she already had the knowledge about the previous marriage and wife of the petitioner his marital status and divorce proceeding pending. She submit that there are major contradiction and manipulation in the complaint, 161 and 164 statement of the prosecutrix herself. Learned counsel submits that in the entire challan neither any involvement of petitioner as accused has been shown nor any case has been made out against the petitioner 5 which is visible from the perusal of the final report submitted by the respondent. 5. Learned Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that, trial in the present case has been started and statement of complainant and witnesses have been recorded which are mentioned in the charge-sheet and at this stage, interference of this Court in the proceedings of the trial Court would hamper the trial. However, he would submit that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned competent court and hence, FIR cannot be quashed at this juncture. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. From perusal of the record and pleadings it is manifest that the petitioner during the lifetime of his first wife without obtaining divorce legally he developed the corporeal relation with the respondent no. 2 and under the false pretext of marriage he committed sexual intercourse with her and also it is evident that he used to torture her physically and mentally. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the trial is in progress and the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses have been recorded, it is not proper for this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, as such, this Court 6 does not find any good ground to quash the FIR/ charge sheet or the order framing charge at this stage, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to entertain this petition at this stage. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is dismissed on this ground. However petitioner is directed to cooperate with the trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib