1 2025:CGHC:33168-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2221 of 2025 1 - Prabhat Shardul S/o Motilal Shardul Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Banskot Jampara, Police Outpost Banskot, Tahsil Baderajpur, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Motilal Shardul S/o Late Shobharam Shardul Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Banskot Jampara, Police Outpost Banskot, Tahsil Baderajpur, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Akash Jaiswal @ Goldi S/o Late Ashok Jaiswal Aged About 26 Years R/o Dalli Rajhara Ward No. 26, Chandali Mata, Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Accused) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (Prosecution) 2 - ABC (Details In A Closed Envelope) (Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For 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 1 6 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 17:35:46 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 46/2024 registered at Police Station Keshkal, District Kondgaoan, CG. for the offence punishable under 24.10. Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 294 and 506 of IPC; ii. The consequential charge sheet bearing No. 45/2024 dated 24.10.2024 arising out of the aforesaid FIR filed for the alleged commission of 212 and 13 315 offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 212 and 315 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; iii. The order dated 19.03.2025 and other subsequent orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, CG. taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet; iv. The order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, CG., framing charges against the petitioners; 3 v. All consequential orders arising therefrom and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 13/2025 titled 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Motilla Shardul and others "pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, CG.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 (Prabhat Shardul) came into contact in February 2023 and developed a relationship, which eventually turned physical in April 2023. They continued their relationship till April 2024. On 04.10.2023, both the Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 executed an affidavit before the Notary Public, Dhamtari, claiming to have performed marriage. The Complainant alleged that during the course of their relationship, Petitioner No. 1 had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and later refused to marry her. She further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 demanded Rs.90,000/- from her, which she paid through cash and online mode. In January 2024, the Complainant became pregnant and upon informing Petitioner No. 1, she was allegedly forced to undergo abortion on 20.02.2024. On 26.04.2024, when the Complainant visited the house of Petitioner No. 1 looking for him, Petitioner No.2 (father of Petitioner No. 1) allegedly abused and assaulted her. Based on the written complaint of the Complainant, FIR No. 46/2024 dated 26.08.2024 was registered at Police Station 4 Keshkal, District Kondagaon (CG) under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Later, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 212, 315 of the IPC. The Petitioners obtained bail at different stages and the trial Court took cognizance on 19.03.2025 and framed charges on 02.05.2025. The Petitioners contend that the relationship was consensual throughout and the FIR was filed maliciously after the relationship deteriorated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR in question was lodged after a delay of more than 4 months from the date of the alleged incident, which clearly reflects that the FIR is nothing but an afterthought, lodged with the sole intention to falsely implicate the Petitioners due to personal disputes arising out of a failed relationship. He further submits that the relationship between the Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 was purely consensual and continued over a substantial period of time without any protest from the Complainant. Such consensual relations, which later turned sour, cannot give rise to criminal liability merely because Petitioner No. 1 refused to continue the relationship or marry the Complainant. It has been contended that the Complainant was a major (19 years old) at the time of the alleged incidents and acted of her own free will. In fact, on 04.10.2023, the Complainant and Petitioner No. 1 executed an affidavit of marriage before a Notary Public, which itself demonstrates her conscious and voluntary consent. It has been 5 further submitted that it is settled law that mere breach of promise to marry, without establishing that the promise was false from the inception, cannot attract the offence of rape. In the present case, the entire relationship was consensual and long-standing, and the FIR has been lodged only as an afterthought. It is submitted that even if the entire contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to constitute offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 212, and 315 of IPC. There is no corroborative evidence of physical assault or any independent witness to support the Complainant’s allegations, particularly against Petitioners No. 2 and 3. He places reliance on the well-settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. It has been further submitted that the allegations against Petitioner No. 2 (father) and Petitioner No. 3 (friend) are vague and do not disclose any specific or overt act amounting to a criminal offence. The allegation against Petitioner No. 3 is merely about providing shelter, which does not constitute an offence under Section 212 IPC. It has been argued that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but a gross misuse of the criminal justice system arising out of personal animosity and failed relationship. The continuation of such proceedings would result in harassment and injustice to 6 the Petitioners. Therefore, in view of the above facts and settled legal principles, this Hon’ble Court may graciously exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the FIR and entire criminal proceedings, as continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that when the police found that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out, the FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and the criminal case is pending consideration before the learned trial Court. The petitioners have failed to make out any ground in the entire petition which can attract the interference of this Court for quashing the FIR. Even otherwise, it has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the criminal proceedings if prima facie its discloses commission of cognizable offence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 7. 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 7 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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of BNSS. 8. In the well celebrated judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do 8 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 9 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 10. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose 10 commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 12. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCC p. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 13. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above 11 stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 14. From the perusal of impugned FIR, it is apparent that the complainant, Omeshwari Sethiya, has alleged that Petitioner No. 1, Prabhat Shardul, first expressed his love to her in March 2023 and assured her that he would marry her. On this pretext, he established physical relations with her multiple times despite her initial refusal. The complainant alleges that Prabhat Shardul visited her house frequently and established physical relations with her without her consent, under the false assurance of marriage. On 27 September 2023, he allegedly took her to Ujjain on the pretext of sightseeing and committed rape there as well. Upon return, he started living at her house and continued physical relations with her until 25 April 2024, after which he refused to marry her and left her home on 26 April 2024. On 28 April 2024, 12 when the complainant visited the house of Petitioner No. 1 to inquire about his whereabouts, Motilal Shardul (Petitioner No. 2) allegedly abused her, slapped her, and assaulted her with a stick but she managed to escape. The complainant further alleged that Prabhat Shardul took Rs.90,000/- from her between February 2023 to April 2024 through both online and cash payments, exploiting her financially. The complainant also claimed she became pregnant as a result of the alleged rape, and that Prabhat Shardul forcibly administered medicine and beat her to cause a forced abortion on 20 February 2024. It further discloses that Motilal Shardul (Petitioner No. 2) was arrested on 18.09.2024 and released on bail by the Court. Akash Jaiswal alias Goldy (Petitioner No. 3) was arrested on 21.09.2024 for allegedly sheltering the main accused and was also released on bail. Prabhat Shardul (Petitioner No. 1) was arrested on 23.10.2024 after anticipatory bail rejection and was later released on bail. During the investigation, medical evidence (FSL reports, vaginal smear, swab tests) and mobile call records (CDR and 63 BSA certificates) were collected. On the basis of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and now, the matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.). 15. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled by the complainant against 13 the petitioners are specific, serious, and prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 294, 506, 212, 315, and 342 IPC. The statements of the complainant, the medical evidence, CDR records, and other materials collected during the investigation cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference at this stage. 16. This Court is mindful of the settled principle of law that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault and offences against women. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the veracity or reliability of the complainant’s allegations, which are matters to be adjudicated during the course of the trial upon appreciation of evidence. Further, as held in Bhajan Lal (supra), if the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR or criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed. The facts of the present case do not warrant an exceptional exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to interdict the ongoing trial. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu