1 2025:CGHC:22349-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1752 of 2025 1 - Ramjee Ravi Alias Ramkumar Ravi S/o Late Nandlal Ravi Aged About 40 Years R/o Makan No.-62, M.L.A. Nagar, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At - Room No. 117, Second Floor, Block And Pocket G-26, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ D/o XYZ, R/o XYZ, (Details Of The Complainant Has Been Enclosed In A Closed Envelop), (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.5.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amishan Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1/State. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 49/2025 registered on dated 30.01.2025 at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh filed under section 64 (1), 331 (2), 332 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet filed on dated 27.03.2025 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur District Korea, under section 64 (1), 331 (2), 332 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and has registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 1213/2025 against the Petitioner. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and 3 proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioner. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the complainant/victim and the petitioner are neighbours and allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.01.2025 at about 9.00 pm, the petitioner knocked door of the house of the victim, he pushed the door and entered into the victim’s house and committed rape on the victim by pressing her mouth and threatening to kill her. Based on the above, the complaint filed by the complainant, the Police of Police Station Baikunthpur, distt. Koreas has registered the offence under Sections Sections 64, 331(2), 332(b), 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS Act, 2023) in Crime No. 49/2025 against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Police has completed investigation and produced charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 64(1), 331(2), 332(2) and 351(2) of the Act 2023, where the case has registered as Criminal Case No. 1213/2025 and further proceeding is going on. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned FIR dated 30.01.2025 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, distt. Korea (C.G.) in Crime No. 49/2025 under Sections 64, 331(2), 332(b), 351 of the Act 2023 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the police has lodged report against the petitioner only on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. It is also submitted that the concerned police station has not taken proper enquiry about the incident and not investigated the matter properly before registering FIR against the petitioner as there is no substantial evidence against the petitioner for 4 his involvement in any such act. It is further stated that allegation made against the petitioner by the complainant is completely vague and not corroborated with any substantial evidence. It is further submitted that the victim is residing in the rented house of one Sanjay Agrawal, who had previous rivalry with present petitioner and said Sanjay Agrawal had lodged FIR against present petitioner and further he used present complainant/victim, who is his tenant, to lodge false FIR against the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the allegation, the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2025 and the FIR has been lodged on 30.01.2025, i.e. after the delay of 05 days and such delay has not been explained by the victim. 5. It has also been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide Order dated 04.4.2025 passed in MCRCA No.462/2025. It is further submitted that as per Section 169 of Cr.P.C. there is no sufficient material and produced the charge sheet in lack of evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner has not played any role in connection of aforesaid offence and allegation made against him is false and baseless, hence the FIR, charge sheet and impugned Order dated 29.3.2025 (Annexure-P/2) are liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of quashing the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused and argued that the perusal of the material on record shows that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner/accused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material available on record. 8. 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 of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. 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 of Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of the BNSS Act). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 10. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing, only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the Court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage 6 while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of the BNSS Act) and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defense of the accused. 11. It transpires from the FIR and the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner that he forcibly entered in the house of the victim/complainant and committed rape on her, hence it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court do not find any ground to quash impugned FIR, the charge-sheet of the aforesaid case as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused. 13. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) (Judge) Chief Justice Bini