1 CRR No. 604 of 2025 2025:CGHC:22070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 604 of 2025 1 - Tej Kumar Ratre S/o R.S. Ratre Aged About 36 Years Post Constable R/o Tifra Police Colony D- Block Quarter No. 601 6th Floor Police Station Sirgitti District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sirgitti District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 15 /05/2025 1. This petition under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2025 2 CRR No. 604 of 2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No.42 of 2025. 2. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the revisioner herein was posted on the post of ‘Constable’ at Police Station Kotwali, District – Bilaspur. As per First Information Report (F.I.R.) the complainant has stated that she came in contact with her through Facebook and they started texting, thereafter, started to talk on phone. The life of the complainant and her husband was not cordial and therefore, she was removed from house. On 16.09.2024 a missing report was lodged by husband of the complainant, thereafter, the complainant/prosecutrix forced the revisioner to keep her with him and when the same fact was objected by the revisioner wife and his family members, the complainant reached the house of the revisioner and stated shouting and quarrelling and thereafter, an FIR was registered against him for having physical relation for a period of 21.12.2022 to 16.02.2024 on the pretext of marriage. A marital dispute led to the complainant filing a police report against the revisioner (accused) under Sections 376(2)(n), 115(2), and 351(3) IPC. The revisioner was granted anticipatory bail. But, his petition to quash the FIR was registered as CRMP No.3393 of 2024 and the 3 CRR No. 604 of 2025 same was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2024. After investigation, the police filed a final report, and the court framed charges against the revisioner. The case involves allegations of a false complaint filed in retaliation for the revisioner's refusal to help the complainant take vengeance against her husband. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was sufficient material available on record to show that the revisioner was not involved in the aforementioned crime as per the version of complainant in FIR Crime No.752 of 2024. The revisioner is an honest and responsible offier, for the same he has also been awarded ‘Certificate for Bravery’ and got out of turn promotion. He further submits that the prosecutrix is married and the relation between her husband is not cordial, therefore, she was ousted by husband on 15.09.2024, thereafter, on 16.09.2024 the prosecutrix husband made her missing complaint to the police station. He goes on to submit that her husband’s statement recorded under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), inter alia, stated that his wife went with one Avinash Mishra after the family dispute took place thereafter, the prosecutrix has left her home. He further submits that there is insufficient evidence 4 CRR No. 604 of 2025 for framing of charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 115(2), and 351(3) IPC (now BNS equivalents). He further argues that the allegations are inherently improbable and lack credibility. Hence, the order impugned herein dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) deserved to be set aside and consequential proceedings or pass any other order as per facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court has correctly evaluated the evidence on record at the stage of charges and found sufficient grounds to proceed with trial, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. This Court has carefully perused the FIR, statements under Section 180 BNSS, and the reasoning given in the impugned order dated 18.03.2025. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, all the defences and arguments raised by the revisioner herein are the matter of merits of the case and it will be decided by the trial Court. The law is settled that meticulous examination of evidence and adjudication of 5 CRR No. 604 of 2025 defence contentions and the prima facie case is made out against the revisioner. the relationship between the parties, the context of the complaint, and the sequence of events are factual matters which warrant full trial and the same are within the domain of the trial Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this instant revision. 8. Further, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in order impugned herein dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all legal and factual defences before the Trial Court during the course of the proceedings. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA