1 2025:CGHC:5719-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 64 of 2025 Naveen Verma S/o Khoman Singh Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Ughra, Police Chowki - Devarbija, P.S. And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Superintendent of Police District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Xyz Nil ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.03 10:31:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 650 of 2024 dated 16.11.2024 registered at Police Station Bemetara for the offence under Section 64(1) & 64(2) (m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report No. 488 of 2024 filed by Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, Bemetara before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara on 27.11.2024. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed in S.T. No. 43 of 2024 by the learned First 3 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Bemetara, whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 64(2) (m) and 69 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to discharge the petitioner from charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, 2023. 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2024, the respondent No. 4 lodged written report at Police Station, Bemetara, alleging therein that since 15.05.2022, the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. The respondent No. 4 asked several time to the petitioner for performing marriage, but only assurances of marriage were given by the petitioner, but he has not performed marriage with her, therefore, on 22.04.2024 she has performed marriage with other person and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house. After marriage, the respondent No. 4 avoided to talk with the petitioner, due to which the petitioner threatened her to inform her matrimonial family members about their relationship. The victim informed the petitioner that her husband is not willing to keep her, therefore, the petitioner advised her to left matrimonial house. Thereafter, on 17.07.2024, the respondent No. 4 went 4 to her parental house at village Dunda from where the petitioner took her at Lodge situated at Raipur Road, Bemetara, where the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, on several times the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage till 21.10.2024. On the basis of above report, the offence under Section 64(1) & 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 have been registered against the petitioner and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Bemetara where the Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Bemetara has framed charges under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 is a married lady and she has not obtained any divorce from her husband. The respondent No. 4 has falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid case on the allegation that the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext marriage. He also submits that since the respondent No. 4 is a married lady and still her marriage is in existence, therefore, the allegation of commission of sexual intercourse by giving false assurance of marriage does not arise. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. From the contents of FIR, it is appearing that victim is a major lady and 5 she with her own will established physical relation with the petitioner with intention that they will perform marriage. Report is lodged only when the petitioner refused to marry her, therefore, no offence as alleged would be made out against the petitioner. He also submits that the respondent No.4 is a married lady and she has not obtained any divorce from her husband. The respondent No. 4 has falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid case on the allegation that the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. 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 and charges have already been framed on 20.12.2024 against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 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. 6 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 registered above said case and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offence framed charges against the petitioner and after framing of charges the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 10. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR as well as charge- sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and further, it appears to be a case of sexual exploitation as after marriage, the victim/respondent No. 4 avoided to talk with the petitioner, due to which the petitioner threatened her to inform her husband about their previous relationship. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R, charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan