1 2025:CGHC:23255-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1618 of 2025 Ashish Kumar Gupta S/o Jagannath Gupta, aged about 28 years R/o Village Bagbahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - XYZ (Prosecutrix / Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It is therefore most respectfully, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the : (i) impugned FIR dated 24.08.2023 bearing Crime No. 127/2023 registered at Police Station, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence U/s 376 (2)(n), 493, 506 Part-II, 313/511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner (as per charge). (ii) Final Report No. 01/2024 filed by Police Station, Kunkuri, District-Jashpur before the learned Special Judge under Section 14 of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jashpur, District-Jashpur against the petitioner. (iii) Entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 02/2024 before the learned Special Judge under Section 14 of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jashpur, District-Jashpur against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2023, the prosecutrix/ respondent No. 2 lodged written report at Police Station, Kunkuri, alleging therein that she acquainted with the petitioner since 2018 and they used to talk with each other. In the year 2018 she used to go for taking tuition of children in the house of petitioner, where she used to talk with the petitioner and the petitioner also used to 3 left the prosecutrix in her house and during this period, the petitioner proposed her, but the prosecutrix avoided the proposal of petitioner by saying that both are of different castes. Thereafter in the year 2018 the prosecutrix obtained government job in Janpad Panchayat, Kunkuri and she used to live in rental house at Kunkuri and the petitioner used to visit in the rental house of prosecutrix at Kunkuri. On 25.06.2021, the petitioner came in the house of prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her by giving assurances of marriage and since then the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasion till April, 2023. When the prosecutrix became pregnant, the petitioner refused to marry her and advised her for abortion, but the prosecutrix refused to abort the child. 4. On the basis of said written report, the offence 376(2)(n), 493, 506 of IPC were registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 127/2023 and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Jashpur by adding the offence U/s 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act against the petitioner and other co-accused. 5. On the basis of material available on record, the learned trial Court has framed the charges U/s 376 (2)(n), 493, 506 Part-II, 313/511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the allegation made in the report against the petitioner, it is appearing 4 that petitioner had established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. The physical relationship between the two continued for considerable period i.e. from 25.06.2021 till April 2023 and therefore the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC would not be attracted. It is contended that the victim is a major lady aged about 34 years as per service book and she is employed as Technical Assistant in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Kunkuri. He also submitted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who is a major lady, are well acquainted to each other and they have developed physical relationship on their own consent, therefore looking to such conduct of prosecutrix, it is evident that she has willing and consenting party, therefore the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner, thus the impugned prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submits that since after due investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and charges have also been framed against the petitioner, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While 5 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 of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 11. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- 6 sheet and materials available on record, it transpires that the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and after due investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and charges have also been framed against the petitioner, furthermore, from perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that from inception i.e. since 25.06.2021, the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with the victim without her consent till 09.03.2023. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustiied. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra