1 2025:CGHC:11327-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 876 of 2025 1 - Dharmendra Yadav S/o Chhabil Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Near Sakti Chowk, P.S.- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Avan Kumar @ Hemant Banjare S/o Late Santram Aged About 41 Years R/o Bharti Nagar Chowk, Talapara Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Suryakant Kashyap S/o Late Shiv Prasad Kashyap Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No.-4, Near Godhiya Talab, Taga Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - X.Y.Z. (Prosecutrix / Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendr Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.10 10:31:53 +0530 2 07.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendr Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 15.10.2024 bearing Crime No. 794/2024 registered at Police Station, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence U/s 64, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. III. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report No. 869/2024 dated 12.12.2024 submitted by Police Station, Janjgir before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence U/s 64, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. IV. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 28/2025 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence U/s 64, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. V. Any other relief (s) which may deems fit in the 3 given facts and circumstances of the case, be awarded in favour of petitioners.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the prosecutrix lodged an FIR at Police Station, Janjgir alleging in it that she is aged about 27 years, resident of Janjgir and she was searching for job and for the purposes of job, she met with Avan Kumar Banjare @ Hemant. The said Avan Kumar Banjare assured her that he will provide the better placement at company. Due to the said inducement, she went to Vishnu Vihar, Janjgir, where back side of the office, Avan Kumar Banjare committed sexual intercourse with her, thereafter the said Avan Kumar Banjare further prepared the video and on the basis of the above video, the friend of Avan Kumar Banjare i.e. Suryakant Kashyap and Dharmendra Yadav blackmailed her and forcefully committed sexual intercourse. It was also alleged on 08.07.2024, Suryakant Kashyap committed sexual intercourse with her near Chintu Dhaba and Dharmendra Yadav committed sexual intercourse on 16.08.2024. It was also alleged that due to the sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix became pregnant and Avan Kumar Banjare for causing the miscarriage, provided pills to her. That, on the basis of above complaint, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged against the accused persons including present petition. After completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Janjgir submitted final report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) on 12.12.2024. After committal proceedings, the 4 case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), where the S.T. No. 28/2025 has been registered against the petitioners and the case is fixed for framing of charges on 07.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are filing this petition, because the prosecutrix lodged the FIR only for purposes of extraction of money, rather than seeking justice for an offence. The petitioners respectfully states that the prosecutrix initially lodged a report solely against Avan Banjare but subsequently withdrew it on 16.09.2024, explicitly stating that she had resolved the dispute with Avan Banjare. Further, the petitioners contends that the initial report was filed by the prosecutrix involved only Avan Banjare and that the later allegations appear to have been fabricated with the aim of extorting money from the petitioners. The petitioners further argues that the FIR is false, as evidenced by the fact that prior to its filing on 09.09.2024, Avan Banjare had already filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, alleging that the prosecutrix had been continuously harassing him to extract Rs. 4 lakhs. The petitioners also highlights a prior case in 2018, where the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against individuals named Rakesh Rathore and Amit @ Soma Rathore, accusing them of outraging her modesty. During the trial, however, she recanted her allegations after allegedly receiving money from the accused, resulting in an acquittal order 5 by the trial court. He lastly submits that the prosecutrix is in habit of lodging the false criminal case and the intention of prosecutrix is further being gathered from the whatsapp conversation between Avan Banjare and complainant from mobile no. 7999218177 to 9993425221. A bare perusal of above conversation, itself indicates that the prosecutrix has demanded amount from the accused. The petitioners are also having voice clipping as well as whatsapp chats of the prosecutrix and petitioner no. 2, in which also the prosecutrix has clearly made demand for money and on non-fulfillment of demand, she further stated that the accused persons will provide the money, even after selling of their houses and vehicles. The prosecutrix is habitual to making false complain and after lodging false complain either she compromise with accused or she turned hostile before the court proceeding. Earlier she has made complained against one Sandeep Rathore and Suraj Rathore under section 354 of IPC and later on before court statement she has turned hostile. Also she has made complaint against one juvenile under section 354 of IPC and section 8/12 of POCSO and in this case also, she has not supported the prosecution story. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions and prayer made by the petitioner and submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed, and the case is fixed for framing of charges on 07.03.2025 and it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, 6 no interference is warranted. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the complainant on meeting Aven Kumar Banjare alias Hemant Banjare, resident of Bharti Nagar Bilaspur, on the pretext of getting a job in a good company, he forcibly called her to his house in Vishnu Bihar Colony and raped her and made a video on his mobile phone. Through the said video, Hemant Banjare's associates Suryakant Kashyap and Dhamendra Yadav blackmailed her and forced her to have physical relations with him under pressure. On 08.07.2024, Suryakant Kashyap raped her in the room next to Chintu Dhaba and made a video of her forcibly. On 16.08.2024, he forcibly had physical relations with her in his house in Vishnu Bihar Colony by Hemant Banjare and Dhamendra Yadav. Due to continuous rape by the above three, she became pregnant and Aven alias Hemant Bajare forcibly got her abortion done by feeding her medicines. Hence, the above allegation are heinous and serious in nature and the petitioners need to be prosecuted and the matter needs to be brought to its logical end. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the case is fixed for framing of charges today i.e. on 07.03.2025 and 7 further, perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioners have committed heinous nature of crime by committing continuous rape with the complainant as a result of which, she became pregnant and Aven alias Hemant Bajare forcibly got her abortion done by feeding her medicines, hence, prima facie the charge-sheet itself discloses commission of a monstrous offence, as such, we do not find any good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet in the present case. 9. In that view of the same, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet