1 2025:CGHC:30774-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2063 of 2025 Shahid Alam S/o Shri Shamim Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Narwal, Ps Barwal, District West Champaran Bihar ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Office, Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Victim Xyz Nil ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/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 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.07 17:58:25 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (482 CrPC) and in exercise thereof be pleased to admit the matter and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash the entire charge-sheet dated 25.12.2025 filed before the Special Judge (Atrocities) Kondagaon in connection with FIR No. 74 of 2024 registered at Police Station Vishrampuri against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 64(2)(M), 351(2), 127(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and also the order framing charge dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SCST (PA) Act, 1989 in Special Case No. 4 of 2025 (State vs. Shahid Alam) being not sustainable in law as also amounts to abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement recorded by Police on 04.12.2024, the respondent No. 2, who has long back crossed the age of majority, has narrated that on false promise being made of marriage by petitioner, she agreed for physical relationship/alleged sexual exploitation. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 herself stated that she has come all the way from Kondagaon to Raipur of her own and thereafter, accompanied with petitioner at various places i.e. Raipur, Jammu Kashmir, Bihar. He also submits that the respondent No. 2/victim in her statement, stated that 3 when a wrong number call was picked up by her which has been made by the petitioner herein eight months’ back and thereafter, they started meeting each other and continued their relationship for eight months and the petitioner has enticed the respondent No. 2/victim with the proposal of marriage and made physical relationship with her. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge-sheet further evidence which has been brought on record that no semen was found in any of the clothes on the ground of respondent No. 2 although semen slides made as it appeared after drawing semen from petitioner herein. The same naturally found in slide ‘E’ made. The respondent No. 2 has also been examined under Section 183 of the BNSS (Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) where respondent No. 2 has also stated about receipt of wrong number call and further stated about her accompanying the petitioner after receipt of Rs. 5000/- in her account from the petitioner. He further contended that the respondent No. 2 stated in her statement that she is in receipt of calls from her family members and some of the calls have also been attended by the petitioner and she stated that the petitioner has not kidnapped or abducted respondent No. 2 and regularly performing his official duties. Thus, it is proved that the respondent No. 2 is a consenting party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the charges have also been framed against the petitioner and it is submitted that none of the ingredients of the charges so framed has been brought home as charge No. 1 which relates to sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage on 25th, 26th, 27th, & 28th November, because treating the version of victim itself it cannot be said that when grown up girl will enter into sexual 4 relationship, the same will come under the purview of Section 64(2)(d) read with Section 69 of the BNSS. Further, other charge under Section 351(3) cannot be said to be made out when on admittedly the respondent No. 2, a grown-up girl, has accompanied the petitioner from 09.10.2024 to 04.12.2024 to various places including Jammu Kashmir, Bihar and also it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 has been in wrongful confinement when the petitioner has allegedly kept her with him with a keypad mobile given to her by petitioner. He also stated that there is no question of involvement of petitioner under Section 3(2)(v)(k) of SC and ST Act, 1989 when no physical relationship has been made for the reason that the respondent No. 2 allegedly is of Schedule Tribe. He would submit that the entire charge-sheet including order framing charges and charges are illegal and cannot be maintained as each and every proceeding of the criminal case in the trial Court to abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law as well as infringement of petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights and in these circumstances it is necessary to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the trial is in progress. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet 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 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 10. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and statement of respondent No. 2/victim under Section 183 of the BNSS, it transpires that the petitioner contacted the respondent No. 2/victim through phone, thereafter, they started talking each other and the petitioner on the pretext of providing her education and employment, the petitioner took her alongwith him to Delhi, Jammu Kashmir, Bihar and during his period, he established physical relationship with her without her consent. Thus, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6 11. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 74 of 2024 dated 04.12.2024, charge-sheet dated 25.01.2025 filed by the Police Station Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon (C.G.) and the order framing charges dated 07.04.2025 against the petitioner and the consequential proceedings bearing in Special Case No.4 of 2025 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan