1 2025:CGHC:27941-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1960 of 2025 Rishiraj Kumar Shukla S/o Sudhakar Shukla Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gharthawaliya, Fatehpur Bypass Road, Gali Number 1, P.S. And District- Sivan Bihar Presently R/o K.V. School P.S. Araimile District- Tura (Meghalaya) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Khairagarh District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) 2 - XYZ (Details of the complainant is enclosed in the envelope) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, 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 “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned first information report (F.I.R.) No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Khairagarh District-Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) dated 15/01/2025 for offences under section 69, 64 (2) (m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside No.30/2025 the entire dated 07/03/2025 Chargesheet filed under section 69, 64 (2) (m), 70 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023,against the present applicant, in the interest of justice. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated 23/05/2025 by the Learned Additional Session Judge, Khairagarh District-Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) iv. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the Session Trial No. 18/2025 (State of C.G. vs Rishiraj Kumar Shukla and another pending before the Additional Session Judge Khairagarh District- Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the Non-Applicant No. 2/ victim lodged written typed complaint on 15.01.2025 alleging that she met the petitioner in the year 2022 during perusing their education at Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh on her birthday, the Applicant took the victim at his rental house situated at Chinta Lal Chall Dauchaura on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her, it is further alleged that in the month of September, 2024 the applicant called the victim at Assam and 3 committed sexual intercourse at the hotel, thereafter he denied marrying the victim, therefore, FIR was registered for offences under section 69, 64 (2) (m) of BNS, 2023 against the Applicant. On the same day i.e., 15.01.2025 the statement of the victim under section 180 of BNSS, 2023 (161 of Cr.P.C.) was recorded in which she maintained her version. 4. Subsequently, on 17.01.2025 the statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 (164 of Cr.P.C.) was recorded before learned Magistrate, wherein she changed her version and narrated that once when she was at the house of the petitioner, then his friend co-accused namely Santosh Kumar alongwith the petitioner mixed something in her drink and the co-accused on the next day evening told her that that he committed sexual intercourse with her, therefore the name of the co-accused/Santosh Kumar was also added in the chargesheet and further offence under section 70 (1) of BNS, 2023 was newly added, and chargesheet was filed under section 69, 64 (2) (m) and 70 (1) against the petitioner and the co- accused on 07.03.2025 and thereafter, order taking cognizance has been passed on 23.05.2025. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that initially the FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 15.01.2025 for offence under Sections 69, 64 (2) (m) of BNS, 2023 on the basis of allegation that he established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and on the same day i.e., 15.01.2025 the statement of the victim under section 180 of BNSS, 2023 (161 of 4 Cr.P.C.) was recorded in which she maintained her version, but subsequently, improvement was made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 (164 of Cr.P.C.), wherein it has been alleged that co-accused is friend of the petitioner has also committed rape on the victim and thereafter, offence under section 70 (1) of BNS, 2023 was newly added. He further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that on the date when the co-accused had established physical relation with the victim, the petitioner has also established physical relationship with the victim, hence, he states that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the charge-sheet and and submitted that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 (164 of Cr.P.C.), there is an allegation against the petitioner as well as co-accused that in the house of petitioner, the petitioner and co-accused had mixed something in her drink and committed rape on her, as such, offence under section 70 (1) of BNS, 2023 was newly added. He further submitted 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. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 8. 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 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. 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 6 whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 10. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- 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 person 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 2022, the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with victim without her consent. 11. 11. 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 unjustified. 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. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra