1 2025:CGHC:27569-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1951 of 2025 1 Vijay Mehta S/o Late Rajendra Mehta Aged About 46 Years R/o Dulari Nagar Gali No. 02, Rudri Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Accused) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Hosue Officer, Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 Xyz (Detail Is Being Filed In A Closed Envelope) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey , Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/06/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. with following prayer:- “It is, in therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.25 17:30:11 +0530 2 pleased to allow Cong willow the petition and further be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 04.03.2025, Session Trial No. 82/2025 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), arising from FIR bearing Crime No. 821/2024, registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with the charge- sheet and all subsequent proceedings, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prior to the lodging of the present FIR, the wife of the present applicant has filed a complaint on 27.07.2024 at police station Dhamtari stating that the complainant has come to the house of the present applicant and had entered into a quarrel and further ransack the house. However, when the complaint was lodged by the wife of the present applicant, the complainant came to the concerned police station and tendered apology letter and promised not to repeat such act. He further submits that subsequently the present FIR was lodged by the complainant to blackmail the applicant for extortion of money. He further submits that the applicant is falsely implicated and prays that the proceedings against the applicant be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made and further refers to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of BNSS at Pg- 86 and submits that it has been categorically stated that she came in contact with the applicant in an event/ program and thereafter they had 3 established corporeal relation in a hotel at Raipur on 30.12.2023 on the pretext of marriage and subsequently she came to know that the applicant was already married and thus the present FIR was lodged. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from the perusal of the material available, it is appearing that the victim has levelled specific allegation that physical relationship between her and the applicant was established only after the promise of marriage made by applicant, meaning thereby the promise was not given after establishing corporeal relation. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations in FIR are groundless. Furthermore, the consent of the victim was obtained by misconception of fact or not, is a disputed question of fact, which is required to be considered and decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence, which would come on record during trial. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the present CRMP, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar