1 / 8 2025:CGHC:17374-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1310 of 2025 Shirish Kumar Vishvakarma S/o Late Lalman Prasad Vishvakarma Aged About 65 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar Sector-03, P.S. Khamtarai District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home and Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. and Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Police District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Police Station Surajpur Through- Officer Incharge, Surajpur District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 – XYZ Nil. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State /Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.19 15:26:24 +0530 2 / 8 respondents No.1 to 4/State. 3. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with following prayer:- (A) It is, therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. No.469/2023, Charge Sheet and Charge Sheet no 42/24, criminal proceeding special session number 04/2024 under section 376 (2) (N), 417 of the IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act. pending before Special Judge (Atrocities) Surajpur, Dist Surajpur (C.G.) (B) That, the hon’ble high court, being pleased, to quash cognizance order dated 16/02/2024, charge dated 10/1/25 and order dated 7/12/24 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Surajpur, Dist Surajpur (C.G.) 4. Brief facts of the case as per FIR are that, Shirish Kumar Vishvakarma (petitioner) was engaged in the service of P.W.D (Jailpara) Surajpur Dist-Surajpur and the petitioner's bunglow was at a distance of 500 meter from the victim's house. The victim used to go to school for leaving her nephew since then the petitioner had his eyes on the victim and he used to try to talk but victim did not talk. The petitioner called the victim after promise and the victim believed the petitioner's promise and on 11/01/2017 made physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and as such, the petitioner made physical exploitation up to 5 years in the name of marriage. The police, after the conclusion of the investigation filed a charge sheet bearing No. 42/2024 on 11.02.2024 before the session court 3 / 8 Surajpur and the case was registered as Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2024. 5. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in MCRCA no 1403/23 vide order dated17.01.2024 by this Court. 6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and no offence is made out as the alleged relationship was between two adults who knew the significance and outcome of their acts and it was consensual in nature. It is further argued that how the petitioner can promise for marriage and how the victim believe to the petitioner’s promise because the petitioner’s age was 58 years old at the time of incident and he lives along with his family. He would next contend that the victim used to come for taking physiotherapy and she provoked the petitioner for physical relationship and she also obtained Rs.18.00 Lakhs from the petitioner which is evident from the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the petitioner made a complaint against the victim on 15/06/2023 thereafter as a counter blast a false complaint has been made against the petitioner. It is further argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR which shows that the victim was a consenting party. As such, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR and further proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned 4 / 8 counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 9. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10.In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence 5 / 8 or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused. 6 / 8 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 11. In case of 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. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the 7 / 8 legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 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 482 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 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations ofF.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13. 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, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 8 / 8 14. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not 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 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to 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 complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR and further proceedings. 16. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu