1 2025:CGHC:27942-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1967 of 2025 Vikas Ghasiya S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ghasiya Aged About 32 Years Sahota, R/o Dadar Bhata, Near Eco City, Dadar Road, B.M.Y. Charoda, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Purani Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 Miss N. (Details Of The Prosecutrix In Annexed In Closed Envelop) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praglbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, 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 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.27 12:09:18 +0530 2 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS with the following prayer:- “a. to quash impugned F.I.R. No. 08/2025 (part of Annexure P/1) registered at the P.S.-Old Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner U/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C; b. To kindly be pleased impugned Chargesheet quash No. 17/2025 dated 02.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) filed the respondent no.1 U/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C against the petitioner; c. To kindly be pleased to quash of impugned order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed in Sessions Trial No. 86/2025 which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Distt.-Durg (C.G.) for further trial and to quash all the subsequent proceedings (if any) initiated against the petitioner on the basis of impugned FIR No. 08/2025. d. And/or any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case is that on 08.01.2025, the respondent No.2 has 3 made a written complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that she is acquaintance with the petitioner since year 2009, and in year 2012 the petitioner proposed her to marry him and they were in relationship. Further, on 19.05.2014 the petitioner for the first time sexually assaulted her on pretext of marriage. She further alleged that since year 2014 till 24.11.2024 the petitioner in different places has sexually exploited her on pretext of marriage. On the said complaint the police of police Station -Old Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) has registered the Crime No. 08/2025, U/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were in relationship for more than a decade and have mutually decided to part their ways. He further submits that after the petitioner got engaged, the respondent No. 2 got possessive and the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. He further submits that the physical relationship was established by mutual consent and petitioner has been falsely implicated. By referring the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Jothiragawan Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police and Anr. (SLP (CRL) No. 6821 of 2024 dated 24.03.2025, learned counsel would submit that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission 4 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that FIR has been registered and chargesheet has already been filed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of chargesheet. From, bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. 7. The supreme court in the matter of Anurag Soni Vs. State of C.G. reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 held thus at paras 12 and 17; “12. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions would be that if it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 IPC and, in such case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Section 375 IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 13 XXX 5 14. XXX 15. XXX 16. XXX 17. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have rightly held that the consent given by the prosecutrix was on misconception of fact and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be a consent so as to excuse the accused for the charge of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC. Both the courts below have rightly convicted g the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC.” 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and particularly considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the charge sheet at this stage. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 9. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is rejected at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar