1 2025:CGHC:28324-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1988 of 2025 Durgesh Ratre S/o Jodhan Ram Ratre Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Lachkera, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.28 11:40:54 +0530 2 “(i) Quash impugned FIR dated 01.04.2025 bearing Crime No. 84/2025 registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (ii) Quash impugned Final Report No. 108/2025 dated 15.05.2025 filed by Police Station, Fingeshwar, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District-Gariyaband for the offence under Section 69 & 88 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (iii) Quash the order of cognizance dated 22.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District-Gariyaband and the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 860/2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District-Gariyaband for the offence under Section 69 & 88 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (iv) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 23.03.2025, the respondent No. 2 lodged written complaint before the Police Station, Tikrapara, Raipur, alleging therein that her marriage was performed with Rajkapur Sonkar on 15.05.2015, but due to some domestic dispute, she left her matrimonial house and living in her parental house. Meantime, she used to talk with the petitioner 3 through phone and the petitioner was informed that his wife is living separately and there is no contact between the petitioner and his wife Laxvantin Kosle. The petitioner gave assurances to give divorce to his wife and to perform marriage with the respondent and on the basis of said assurances, the petitioner developed physical relationship with the respondent No. 2 and due to their physical relationship, the respondent No. 2 became pregnant in the year 2021, but the petitioner aborted her pregnancy by saying that there is no divorce between the petitioner and his wife. In the month of September, 2021, the husband of respondent No. 2 namely Rajkapoor Sonkar came with other social members for taking back to the respondent No. 2, but she refused to return in the house of her husband Rajkapoor Sonkar, due to which, the parental family members of respondent No. 2 ousted her from parental house, therefore the respondent No. 2 used to live in rental house at Raipur and the petitioner used to visit the room of respondent No. 2 and committed sexual intercourse with her. Meantime, in the month of April, 2022 the husband of respondent No. 2 namely Rajkapoor Sonkar died and after the death of her husband, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 used to live together in the rental house situated at Siddheshwari Nagar, Kota, Raipur and due to continuous sexual intercourse committed by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 again became pregnant and the petitioner has again aborted her pregnancy. Thereafter in month of January, 2023 the petitioner 4 took the respondent No. 2 at Delhi, where they stayed in hotel and the petitioner obtained forged Adhar Card prepared in the name of respondent No. 2, in which, the name of petitioner is mentioned as husband of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner for performing marriage, but the petitioner refused to perform marriage by saying that he was passing time with the respondent No. 2, as his wife left him, thus the petitioner has sexually exploited to the respondent No. 2 on the pretext of marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 01.04.2025 is bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. The petitioner and prosecutrix met in the year 2020 through phone and they developed friendly relationship and at that time, the husband of prosecutrix was alive, therefore the allegation of sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage does not arise. Later on, the husband of prosecutrix has died and at present the prosecutrix is a widow lady. The petitioner is a government servant and the present FIR has been lodged only for gaining money. Further, it appears that the petitioner and the victim both are married and the victim was aware of this fact, furthermore, the petitioner and the victim were in a consensual love relationship and she was a consenting party, therefore the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner. The prosecutrix is well educated, major, married, 40 years old lady and looking to her 5 conduct, it is evident that she was willing and consenting party, therefore the alleged offence under Section 69 of B.N.S. is not made out against the petitioner. There is inordinate delay in lodging report. The incident alleged from 01.01.2021, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 23.03.2025. It is very well settled that criminal proceedings maliciously instituted with ulterior motives can be quashed by the Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present is a case where the allegations made in the FIR or written complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Lastly, recently vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced judgment in Criminal Appeal Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024 in the case of "Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.", whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the offence under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code by relying upon the Para 102(5) & 102(7) of judgment of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, cognizance has already been taken against the petitioners, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be 6 dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that on 23.03.2025, the victim came to the Tikrapara police station in Raipur and submitted a written application to register a report regarding Durgesh Ratre having physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and refusing to marry her. The actual Crime No. 84/2025 under section 69 of the BNS was registered and investigation was taken up. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS and Section 160 BNSS. As per the statement of the victim, the accused had got the abortion done when the victim became pregnant, and as she stated in her statement, Section 88 BNS was added in the case. Upon finding evidence of crime against the accused from the victim, witnesses, scene inspection, medical report and completion of investigation in the case, charge-sheet no. 108/2025 dated 15.05.2025 has been prepared. Hence, looking to the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature and gravity of offence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed so that the trial be concluded and taken to its logical end. 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 7 and cognizance has already been taken against the petitioner, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, prima facie discloses the fact that the petitioner made physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage and also got her aborted her pregnancy twice, 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