1 2025:CGHC:33935-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2244 of 2025 Bijendra Singh S/o Sambhan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Parshurampur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Station House Officer Police Station Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) 3 Xxxxx (Prosecutrix) Nil ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/07/2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.18 19:16:16 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing entire charge sheet including the FIR No. 184/2025 under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC/ 69 of BNS and in consequences quash the order of taking cognizance dated 21.05.2025 and order dated 28.06.2025 and order dated 01.07.2025 and memo of charges under section 64(2) (m) and 69 of BNS and entire criminal case (i.e. Sessions Trial case no. 54/2025 between State Vs. Bijendra Singh) being abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of petitioner's fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case in brief is that a complaint has been filed at the behest of respondent no. 3, before the respondent no. 2 police station stating that the petitioner and respondent no. 3/complaint were known to each other and they were in contact with each 3 other since 2021 and for the first time on 10.04.2021, the petitioner has made the physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and from then the petitioner and respondent no.3/ prosecutrix made relationship and thereafter as per the allegation the petitioner has refused to marry complainant after which the complainant has made the complaint before the respondent police station. 4. On the basis of said complaint, FIR has been registered before the concerned Police Station against the present petitioner and after completion of investigation, the charges were framed and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offences under Section 64 (2) (m) and 69 of BNS. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the allegations made against the petitioner are false and baseless and further the prosecutrix herself made statement that she was in relationship with the petitioner from 2021 and further alleged that on the pretext of marriage the relationship has been established and no alarm was made till 4 years and suddenly in March 2025 the prosecutrix has made the complaint about the aforesaid incidence. He further submits that the prosecutrix is major and competent to give her consent and every promise of marriage does not constitute the offences as already been held in plethora of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore registration of FIR and the filing of charge 4 sheet and order of cognizance and framing of charges are contrary to law. He further placed reliance in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Reported in 2021 (18) SCC 517 and prays for quashment of the FIR, charge sheet and further proceedings. 6. Per Contra, learned State counsel oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that FIR has been registered and chargesheet has already been filed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Bare perusal of the pleadings and documents appended with the petition, it is evident that since 2021, the petitioner has made the physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and the same continued till lodging of FIR i.e. March, 2025 and thereafter suddenly he declined to marry the victim. On the basis of report, the police investigated the matter. 9. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR, charge sheet and further criminal proceedings. From, bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. 10. The supreme court in the matter of Anurag Soni Vs. State of C.G. reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 held thus at paras 12 and 17; 5 “12. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions would be that if it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 IPC and, in such case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Section 375 IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 13 XXX 14. XXX 15. XXX 16. XXX 17. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have rightly held that the consent given by the prosecutrix was on misconception of fact and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be a consent so as to excuse the 6 accused for the charge of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC. Both the courts below have rightly convicted g the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC.” 11. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and particularly considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the charge sheet at this stage. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 12. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is rejected at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar