1 2025:CGHC:38703-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1807 of 2025 Aniket Shrivastava S/o Hemendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. D/1, Ward No. 39, House Of Smt. Chhaya Shrivastava, Khandelwal Colony, Korin Bhata, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Basantpur, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Xyz (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 / State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ Complainant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/08/2025 1 Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the 2 State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet numbered as 96/2025 dated 16.04.2025 submitted by the police of P.S. City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon in Crime No. 82/2025, before the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) Atrocities Act, Rajnandgaon, for offence under Section 85, 86(a) B.N.S. 498(A) and 376(B) IPC and 3(2) (v)(a), 3(1)(b)(ii) of Atrocities Act and further be pleased to quash the First Information Report dated 19.02.2025 under Section 85, 86(a) of BNS lodged against the petitioner vide Crime No. 82/2025 registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, alongwith the cognizance order in Special Case Number 07/2025, dated 16.04.2025 before the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon. 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2/complainant were having love affair and their marriage was solemnized on 10.06.2022 at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur. However, on 10.12.2022, the complainant moved an application before the Mahila Thana, Rajnandgaon to the effect that the petitioner and his family members exerted cruelty upon her and passed comments based on her caste upon which a counselling took place where she stated that she may be provided maintenance and wanted to settle the dispute only through Court proceedings. Being a matrimonial dispute, the case was proceeded under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, after a month on 20.02.2023, the complainant/respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, against the petitioner, his parents and uncle alleging demand of dowry by them as also commission of domestic violence. The said complaint was forwarded to the Thana Incharge, Basantpur, who after proper enquiry submitted a 3 report to the Superintendent of Police, stating the complaint to be unnecessary exaggerated version of the complainant. However, later, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 19.02.2025 on the basis of online complaint made to the National Commission for Women dated 19.05.2023 wherein similar allegations were levelled. 4 Ms. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected, however, this Court had granted bail to the petitioner in Cr.A. No. 537/2025 vide order dated 17.04.2025. It is submitted that the entire story of demand of dowry and domestic violence is mere figment of imagination. In fact the petitioner and the complainant were living happily. The petitioner belongs to general category whereas the complainant belong to the scheduled caste category and this fact was known to each other very well and as such, there was no reason to disrespect the complainant on the basis of her caste. The police had already investigated into the allegations levelled against the petitioner which was found to be mere petty family issues which have been tried to be given a colour of criminal offence. No ingredients of Section 85, 86(A) BNS, 498(A) and 376(B) IPC alongwith Section 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(b)(ii) of Atrocities Act are made out against the petitioner even if the allegations are taken at its face value. The complainant was hell bent to get the petitioner behind the bars and has been making various efforts before different authorities making false and frivolous allegations. Ms. Rai submits that the contents of the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence. The parties were in a consensual relationship. The institution of the FIR was with the ulterior motive of retribution due to a personal vengeance. It is further submitted that if the complainant has not exhausted its alternative remedies under the Cr.P.C. after proceedings of 4 155, then the Court should scrutinize the complaint and the FIR very cautiously. In support of her contentions, Ms. Rai relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. & Another {2025 INSC 203} and Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal {(2022) 1 SCR 884} to contend that multiple complaints are impermissible. The complainant has not disclosed details of dates and events of harassment by the petitioner and merely and omnibus allegations have been made. Even the medical report does not support the case of the complainant. 5 It is lastly submitted that the respondent No. 2/complainant only moved the National Commission for Women after the proceedings of Section 155 Cr.P.C. and when the petitioner moved an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce and not before that. 6 On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2/complainant, the police had investigated the matter and submitted its final report before the competent Court and now it is for the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter. 7 Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant opposes the present petition and submits that the same may be rejected as from the materials available on record, it is evident that there is sufficient evidence for proceeding with the trial against the petitioner. 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9 This Court, vide order dated 13.06.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the High Court Mediation Centre on 26.06.2025 and to list 5 the matter on 10.07.2025 alongwith the report of the Mediator and till then, the further proceedings of the Special Case No. 7/2025, pending before the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Rajnandgaon, was directed to be stayed and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lac with the Mediation Centre which was to be paid to the respondent No. 2 complainant (wife). The amount has been duly received by the respondent No. 2/complainant, however, as per the office report, the mediation proceedings have failed. 10 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a chargesheet 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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. 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 FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/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 FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 6 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 12 In a well-celebrated judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, {1992 Supp (1) SCC 335} the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13 It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.06.2022 at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur and after six months of their marriage, the complainant moved an application before the Mahila Thana, Rajanandgaon alleging cruelty being meted out to her. The police, after investigating the matter proceeded under Section 155 Cr.P.C. as nothing was found against the petitioner or his family members. Even in the FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2, there is only bald allegations that the father of the petitioner came to the residence of the complainant and threatened her. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the complainant had been living together for 7 years and twice she was compelled to abort the pregnancy and when her condition started to deteriorate, he had performed marriage with her in order to save himself. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to come to her house and perform sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 14 According to the complainant/respondent No. 2, she was in relationship with the petitioner for more than 7 years and she has alleged that the petitioner committed forceful sexual assault on her which by no stretch of imagination can be true as had it been a case of forceful sexual intercourse and that too on the pretext of marriage, she would not have waited so long for lodging the complaint. The relationship itself appears to be consensual and the complainant being a major girl was fully aware of the consequences of her own acts. Now, when their marital relationship is at the verge of breaking as the petitioner has filed a divorce petition, lodging of the FIR appears to be an afterthought. Both 8 the parties were aware of each other’s social status that one belongs to general category and other belonged to the Scheduled Caste category and as such, the addition of offences under the Atrocities Act by the prosecution is nothing but to make the case appear more intense and grave. 15 The Apex Court in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, {Criminal Appeal No. 4721/2024, decided on 20.11.2024, 2024 INSC 879}, while dealing with the similar issue, observed as under: “22. Recently this Court in XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496 held that when the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and when the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, the ingredients of the offence of rape were not made out. Similarly, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out of identical facts, this Court has enumerated the following: “18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.” 23. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.10.2023 in application under Section 482 CrPC. The application under Section 482 of CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. The FIR No.272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2) (n) and 506 of the IPC, charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019 filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi and the trial pending in the Court of ASJ, Rohini, Delhi shall accordingly stand quashed.” 16 In light of the above ratio, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a 9 sexual relationship with the petitioner solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages, cannot be given a colour of criminality. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. It is further an admitted fact that marriage had taken place between the parties. 17 As a result, the charge sheet numbered as 96/2025 dated 16.04.2025 submitted by the police of P.S. City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon in Crime No. 82/2025, before the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) Atrocities Act, Rajnandgaon, for offence under Section 85, 86(a) B.N.S. 498(A) and 376(B) IPC and 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(b)(ii) of Atrocities Act, the First Information Report dated 19.02.2025 under Section 85, 86(a) of BNS lodged against the petitioner vide Crime No. 82/2025 registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, alongwith the cognizance order in Special Case Number 07/2025, dated 16.04.2025 before the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, are quashed. 18 The petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 20:01:35 +0530