1 2025:CGHC:26559-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1632 of 2025 Dilip Kumar Yadav S/o Jageshwar Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Karangabahla Police Sation Patthalgaon District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Patthalgaon District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Xyz (Prosecutrix / Complainant ) ...Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.24 10:41:35 +0530 2 “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 20.03.2024 bearing Crime No. 67 of 2024 registered at Police Station, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner. III. Quash the final report No. 51 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024 filed by Police Station, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jashpur, District Jashpur against the petitioner. IV. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Special (POCSO) Case No. 8 of 2024 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Patthalgaon, District Jashpur against the petitioner. V. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and victim are resident of same village Karangabahla Mudapara, Tahsil Pathhalgaon, District Jashpur, therefore, they are well acquainted to each other. The petitioner and victim used to meet with each other and they 3 have developed love affair since 2020 as well as physical relationship with their own and free will. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 20.03.2024, the victim lodged report at Police Station, Patthalgaon alleging therein that since 14.02.2020, the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, but later on the petitioner has refused to marry her. On the basis of said report, the offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’) have been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 67 of 2024 and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Special Court, Jashpur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before the learned trial Court, which was rejected, therefore, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before this Court, which was registered as MCRCA No. 50 of 2025 and vide order dated 03.02.2025, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further states that the petitioner and victim are well acquainted to each other and they have developed physical relationship on their own consent, therefore, looking to such conduct of victim, it is evident that she was consenting party, therefore, the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner, thus, the impugned prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Hence, the FIR as well as charge-sheet are liable to be quashed. 4 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court and the trial is in progress. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. 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 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 10. Further, in the present case, from the perusal of the charge-sheet 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. 5 Thus, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet. 11. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 67 of 2024 dated 20.03.2024, and the charge-sheet bearing No. 51 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024 filed by the Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Special (POCSO) Case No. 8 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan