1 2025:CGHC:14011-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1052 of 2025 Ritik Yadav S/o Sunil Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Ramnagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Station House OfÏcer Police Station- Mahila Thana Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. X (Complainant) (Name And Address Is Given In Closed Envelope) ...Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.25 17:00:39 +0530 2 prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the application filed by the applicant may kindly be allowed and the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to set-aside/quash the first information report bearing Crime No. 09 of 2025 registered in Police Station – Mahila Thana, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 81 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the present applicant may kindly be discharged, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the victim/complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged a report in Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) on 03.02.2025 alleging inter-alia that she acquainted with the present applicant since her childhood. It is alleged that the present applicant is working in CRPF and posted at Avantikapur Pulwama. It is further alleged that in the month of July, 2023, she came into contact with the present applicant and thereafter, she started conversation with him through mobile phone. On 22.11.2023, the present applicant performed marriage with the victim in Siddhi Mata Mandir at Bemetara in presence of her two friends and thereafter, made physical relationship with her in the rental house of the victim. It is further alleged that in the month of December, 2023, the present applicant called the victim to Kashi Vishvanath where she was taken to Alkanda Hotel and the present applicant made physical relationship with her. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the present applicant again performed marriage with her on the Bank of holy river Ganga in Kashi Vishwanath and told her that in the month of March when he came on leave then perform Court marriage with her. It is further alleged that in the month of March, the present applicant came to village on leave and on request of marriage by the 3 victim, the present applicant started procrastinating. The victim disclosed her through mobile phone regarding her pregnancy then the present applicant abused her told for abortion. On 20.10.2024, the victim went to Rupjeevan Hospital as she was having bleeding, she was disclosed by the Doctor that there is a miscarriage. It is further alleged that the present applicant stopped conversation with the victim and as and when he come on mobile phone then the victim was misbehaved by the present applicant as he started abusing her and refused to Court marriage with her. On the basis of written report lodged by the victim, the Police registered an offence bearing Crime No. 09 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 81 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and investigation was initiated. The charge-sheet is yet to be filed and matter is being investigated by the Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Police of Police Station Mahila Thana, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) erred in lodging FIR bearing Crime No. 09 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 81 of the BNS against the present applicant as no offence of rape would be made out against him. He also submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is no offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS would be made out on plain reading of the FIR. The FIR is nothing, but abuse of the process of law, therefore, the present applicant is deserved to be discharged and the FIR report bearing Crime No. 09 of 2025 is liable to be quashed. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case under Section 64(2)(m), 81 of the BNS against the present applicant and there is inordinate delay in lodging report as time of offence is 4 stated to be from November, 2023 to October, 2024 and report is lodged on 03.02.2025, therefore, from the first date of relationship it is about one year and three months delay and from the last date of alleged crime more than 04 months delay in lodging report, though last date of physical relationship with the present applicant has not been disclosed by the victim, but it was stated that on 20.10.2024 she was informed by Doctors that there is a miscarriage. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that victim is more than 24 years of the age and she has already performed marriage with the present applicant on 22.11.2023 and subsequently, on 13.02.2025 a report was lodged by her against the present applicant that the present applicant has committed rape on false pretext of marriage also committed mental harassment against the victim, which also shows that a false promise of marriage cannot be made as she is well educated lady who knows the pros and cons of such a relationship and entered into it with wide and open eyes based on her consent and volition, therefore, the offence under Section 64(2) (m), 81 of the BNS would not be made out against the applicant. He further stated that the physical relationship between the victim and the applicant was admittedly consensual and the acknowledgment consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 in MCRCA No. 290 of 2025. Hence this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, 5 the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the impugned FIR. 10. 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, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (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 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the 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 F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of the BNSS or 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. 6 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 14. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to 7 private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 15. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the victim/complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out and further, it appears to be a case of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1857, and Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 615, and the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. 16. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan