1 2025:CGHC:34366-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2274 of 2025 Anup Tirkey S/o Late Mikhail Tirkey Aged About 34 Years Working As Constable (C.R.P.F.) Caste Uraon R/o Village Jumaikela Police Station Kansabel District - Jashpur (C.G.) (As Per Correct Address) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Sitapur, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 2 Xyz Nil ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/07/2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.22 10:10:53 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Shailendra Sharma, 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:- I. The F.I.R. dated 30.04.2025 registered at P.S.- Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 64(2) of BNS in crime no. 162/2025 lodged against the Petitioner. II. The Chargesheet dated 19.06.2025 filed before the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 64(2) of BNS having chargesheet no.204/2025 filed against the present Petitioner. III. The Cognizance order dated 26.06.2025 passed against the Petitioner in Criminal case No. 1435/2025 by the Learned Court of JMFC, Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.g.) for the offence U/s- 64(2) of BNS and the whole criminal proceeding which is pending before the Learned Court of JMFC, Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) for kind consideration. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the complainant/victim has made a complaint against present petitioner that on 11.8.2023, the 3 petitioner has made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and now after giving birth to a child, he refused to marry her. 4. On the basis of said complaint, offence under Section 64(2) of the BNS has been registered against the petitioner in crime no.162/2025 at Police Station-Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.g.) and the criminal case no.1435/2025 initiated against the Petitioner before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the allegations made against the petitioner are false and baseless. He further submits that the prosecutrix is already married lady and having a child of 8 years. He further submits that the prosecutrix is having a habit of roping innocent people like the petitioner in a false criminal cases. He further submits that though the allegation is made that out of their relationship a baby was born but the same has not been proved. He further submits that the relationship between the prosecutrix and petitioner was consensual in nature, therefore, he prays for quashment of the FIR and further criminal proceedings. 6. Per Contra, learned State counsel oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that a baby 4 was born out of the relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner on 06.02.2025 and the 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 2023, 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. June, 2025 and thereafter suddenly he declined to marry the victim. It is also alleged that out of their relationship a child was also born. 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 and after she gave birth to a child he declined to marry her. 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; “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 5 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 accused for the charge of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC. Both the courts below have rightly convicted g the 6 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