1 2025:CGHC:30776-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2100 of 2025 Anil Kumar Lahare S/o Jeevan Lal Lahre Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurda, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Malkharod, District Sakti (C.G.) 2. XYZ (Description Of The Prosecutrix/ Complainant Is In The Closed Envelop) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. 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. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Ramsajiwan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2/victim. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.07 17:58:26 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 337 of 2021 registered at Police Station Malkharod, now District Sakti (C.G.) and conginzance order dated 21.12.2201 and also quash the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 05.01.2022 and quash of entire proceeding of case bearing Special Session Case No. 67 of 2021 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution story in brief is that, as per the complaint made by the victim, the crime has been registered under Sections 454, 354, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and during the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation and after completion of investigation, charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 354, 506, 323 and 454 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which was denied by the petitioner, and therefore, trial has been commenced. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present case, the victim was examined and the parents of the victim also examined before the learned trial Court and after the examination of the victim, the victim came to know that she got pregnancy from the petitioner. He further submits that when the victim got pregnancy, her parents were ousted the victim and then she went to reside with the 3 petitioner at his house and both are residing as husband and wife and also solemnized marriage and after elapse of some time, on 11.09.2024 from their wedlock, a baby boy has been born. Therefore, the petitioner filing this petition for quashment of charge-sheet, FIR and cognizance order dated 21.12.2021, quashment of charges framed against the petitioner and quashment of entire proceeding of case bearing Special Session Case No. 67 of 2021 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Hence, this petition. 5. 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 of the offence and vide order dated 05.01.2022, the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and the trial is in progress. 6. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 4 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 offence, the trial has been initiated against the petitioner and the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 framed the charges against the petitioner and the evidence of victim has already been recorded by the learned trial Court and thereafter, petitioner and the victim had performed marriage and from their marriage they are having one boy child. But, considering the fact that the evidence of the victim has already been recorded and the trial is at the verge of his completion, moreover, the victim was minor at the time of the offence which was committed and offence under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is not compoundable, hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan