1 2025:CGHC:33544-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2236 of 2025 Shiva Sahu S/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhangawan, Ward No. 16 Thana, Jaithari District - Anuppur (M.P.) Current R/o Shweta Colony, Mandir Hasaud, Thana - Mandir Hasaud District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Mandir Hasaud District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - XYZ ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms.Neeta Tulsani Thawani, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.Hariom 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 17.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.17 18:10:23 +0530 2 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “1. That, this present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition the petitioners herein seeking quashing of FIR as well as entire charge-sheet dated 20.04.2025 filed against them by the Police of Police Station- Mandir Hasaud District Raipur (CG). in connection with Crime no. 0113/2025, under section 64 (2) (m) of BNS 2023 as Criminal Case No. 159/2025 Pending Before Additional Session Court (F.T.C.) RAIPUR, DIST- RAIPUR (C.G.), and the cognizance taken on dated 20.04.2025 by the learned JMFC, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the cognizance dated- 20.04.2025, taken by and further quash the entire criminal proceeding with Criminal Case No.-159/2025 under section 64 (2) (m) of BNS 2023 the Additional Session Court (F.T.C.) RAIPUR, DIST- RAIPUR (C.G.) (next date of Trial is 28.07.2025 for Argument before charge), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 made written complaint against the petitioner stating that that Shiva Sahu and her belongs to the same village and she knew him because from childhood they were friend and they both liked each other. He said to her that he will marry her and has taken her in a house on rent in Shweta Colony, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur on September 2024 and kept her with him for about 6-7 months where he made continuously forcibly physical relationship with her by pretending 3 to marry her. After that, he started harassing her and started abusing her. Then she said that if he don't want to keep her then drop her at her home. Then he took her in Gaurela side and thereafter he left her at Bilaspur station and ran away. One day he contact her and said that she will come to Raipur then make a call to her, they will mat. Thereafter, when she was reaching Raipur railway station, she continues called to Shiva Sahu, but he did not pick her mobile. She spent whole night at Raipur railway station but he did not take her mobile; not even reply ones. 4. Respondent no. 2 is a married woman. On 09.04.2025 the petitioner got bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.). The Petitioner is also a married person and has one child. Both have consenting party and maintaining extra marital affairs. Respondent No. 2 has stated in the FIR that Shiva Sahu and her belongs to same village and she knew him because from childhood they were friend and they both liked each other. 5. After registered the FIR, the concerned police has started to be investigated the matter and after completion of all the mandatory provisions filed a charge-sheet against the present petitioner. After filing of the charge-sheet on 20.04.2025 the concerned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur has registered the case as Criminal Case No.159/2025, and fixed the case for further proceeding. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations 4 made by the prosecution against the petitioner are totally false and wage, even not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. She further submits that according to Section 183 of the BNSS statement of the victim, she belongs to same village and she knew the petitioner and from childhood they were friend and both liked each other. Since September 2025 they were in relationship which shows that they were consenting party and maintaining extra marital affairs. She also submits that in whole FIR she did not mention that she is a married lady. The ingredients of Section 64 (2) (m) of the BNS are not attracted with the present case. She contended that from perusal of the charge-sheet, it reflects that the present is a clear- cut case which shows that there is misunderstanding between them and entire story is surrounding within extra marital affairs and there is no role of the present petitioner. The present case is based upon misuse of process of law and only omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed / set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitoner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie offence and from perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2, prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out agaisnt the petitioner. As such, 5 the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 9. 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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In the well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 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 6 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 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." 7 11. 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 Cr.P.C. 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., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under 8 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. 14. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 15. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu