1 2025:CGHC:27137-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1944 of 2025 Laxmi Kumar Dahariya S/o Late Milan Prasad Dahariya Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bramhnin P.S. Akaltara, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Present Address Hardibazar Gandhinagar P.S. Hardibazar District - Korba (C.G.) (As Per Correct Details) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer , Police Station Hardibazar District - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sanita Kosle W/o Late Basant Kosle Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Amadand Outpost Rajgamaar P.S. Balco District - Korba (C.G.) (Complainant ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.25 10:48:11 +0530 2 heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “i) F.I.R. No. 263/2024 dated 28.10.2024, registered at Police Station- Hardibazar, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354, 455 of I.P.C. ii) Chargesheet No.263/2024 dated 15.12.2024 filed before the Court of Learned JMFC, Pali, District- Korba (C.g.), for the offence U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354, 455 of I.P.C. arising out of crime no.263/2024. Iii) The Cognizance order dated 23.12.2024 taken by the Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) in a Criminal Case No. 1457/2024 for the offence U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354, 455 of I.P.C. iv) The Charges framed U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354, 455 of I.P.C. arising out of crime no.263/2024 at Police Station- Hardibazar, District- Korba (C.G.) in a criminal case no.1457/2024 pending before the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) and the whole consequential proceedings.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 27.10.2024 at 10:00 pm, the present petitioner being acquainted with the complainant namely Sanita Kosle, by taking advantage of the complainant's loneliness, entered into the house of the complainant forcefully 3 and removed his clothes with the intention of doing obscene acts with the complainant. After that, the petitioner has tore the clothes worn by the complainant and molested her and when the complainant started crying and screaming, the complainant's real nephew Dinesh Sonawani came inside the house of the complainant and saved the complainant from the wrong act of the petitioner. On the basis of the above written report of the complainant, Hardibazar police station has registered a crime against the petitioner under section 74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354, 455 of I.P.C. in crime number 263/2024. After lodging the aforesaid F.I.R. against the accused, the Police authority has arrested the present petitioner on 11.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is a government servant, having no involvement in the aforesaid crime and a false case has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioner wants to submit that the complaint on basis of which the FIR has been lodged shows the different version of story, as compared to the Statement given by the complainant before the Police Authority and 164 Cr.P.C. Statement given before the trial Court. He further submits that in offence an offense under Section 354 I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the accused used force or criminal force against the victim with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The 4 learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the courts have to scrutinize whether the evidence supports the ingredients of the offense under section 354, 455 of I.P.C, but the learned trial Court has not looked into the aforesaid ingredients before the framing of charge. He also submits that the complainant is also demanding the money from the petitioner to resolve the dispute/false case made out against the petitioner and with respect to the same, various complaint has been made out by the petitioner before the police authority, but no action has been taken by the police authority, which is apparent from the complaint letter moved before the Police Authority. Further, petitioner has given the amount of Rs.15,000 as a borrow/loan amount to the complainant and on the version of the complainant, the petitioner went to the house of the complainant on 27.10.2024, but the complainant along with her lover namely Dinesh Sonwani present in the house and forcefully removed the clothes of the petitioner and the complainant herself torn her clothes, and her lover namely Dinesh Sonwani made the video and are threatening to make it viral, if the amount of Rs.50,000/- is not given to them. The enquiry report itself shows that the present Petitioner is having no involvement in the aforesaid embezzlement and it is very specifically mentioned that no transaction has been found in the account of the present Petitioner. 5. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and 5 submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. Learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 331(5) of the IPC, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that on the date of incident, the petitioner came to complainant’s house and seeing her alone, took out his clothes and tried to remove her clothes with wrong intentions, when he could not remove them, he tore complainant’s clothes and molested her. At the same time, complainant's nephew Dinesh Sonwani was coming from Deepka, he heard her voice and came home and scolded the petitioner and chased him away. On 28/10/2024, the complainant submitted a written application form to the police station regarding molestation and for taking appropriate action. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the 6 present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses that on the date of incident, the petitioner came to complainant’s house and seeing her alone, molested her. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet