1 2025:CGHC:41336-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2563 of 2025 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal S/o D.N. Jaiswal, Aged About 53 Years R/o - Pista Inn Hotel, Village - Patna, P.S. - Patna, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh Permanent Address - Bus Stand Korba, P.S. - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station-Patna, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2. Xyz D/o Abc Nil ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.19 11:08:58 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR/criminal proceedings of Crime No. 30 of 2025 dated 04.02.2025 registered at Police Station Patna, District Koriya for offence punishable under ection 64(2)(m) of BNS and the charge-sheet (final report) bearing No. 53 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025, and the order dated 18.03.2025 whereby the learned Court below taken the cognizance against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2025 the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Patna, District Koriya, alleging that the petitioner had engaged her at Pista Inn Hotel to work at the front office and had allotted her Room No. 108. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner entered her room and repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse. According to her, when she attempted to complain, the petitioner assured her of providing maintenance. However, in November 2024 she was removed from service, after which she lodged the instant report on 02.02.2025. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 30/2025 was registered for the offence under Section 64(2) (m) of the BNS. After investigation, Final Report (Challan) No. 53/2025 dated 10.03.2025 was filed, and cognizance was taken by the Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur on 18.03.2025. The matter is presently posted for framing of charges. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that much prior to the impugned FIR, the victim had on 08.07.2024 submitted a complaint at Police Station Patna alleging that the petitioner and his wife had asked her to leave the job, thereby causing her mental harassment. However, in the said complaint she made no allegation of sexual assault. During police enquiry, she even stated that the matter had been mutually compromised, which prima facie demonstrates that the subsequent allegations are an afterthought made with ulterior motive. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s wife had also lodged a complaint on 02.09.2024, specifically mentioning that as she and her husband were dissatisfied with the victim’s work, a one-month notice for quitting the job had been issued to her, upon which the victim threatened to implicate the petitioner in a false case of a women-related offence. The petitioner himself had also lodged a complaint on 20.10.2024 against the victim for damaging hotel property and harassing him. Additionally, he made a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, complaining of continuous threats by the victim to falsely implicate him. Statements in this regard were duly recorded by the police. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite these prior facts, in a biased manner the FIR dated 04.02.2025 came to be registered without conducting any preliminary enquiry. Pursuant to the 4 said registration, the petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2025, but was subsequently enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2610/2025 vide order dated 03.04.2025. Hence the present petition. 7. 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 before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the case is fixed for framing of charges against the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the 5 learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 11. From a perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, it emerges that the victim reported that in August 2023, the owner of Pista Inn Hotel, Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, brought her from Dipka, Korba to Patna, employed her as front office staff, and allotted her Room No. 108. Thereafter, the accused allegedly subjected her to repeated sexual assault and rape, as well as mental harassment, from August 2023 to November 2024. Whenever she threatened to lodge a complaint, he allegedly pacified her with assurances of maintenance and accommodation. The victim also claimed that the accused installed a camera in the bathroom; however, this allegation was not substantiated during the inquiry. The investigation confirmed that the accused lured the victim with the promise of employment, accommodation, salary, and other facilities and continued the abuse over two years. With her consent, a medical examination was conducted, and samples were sent to FSL Ambikapur for analysis. On completion of the investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the accused, who was arrested, examined, and whose statements were recorded. Consequently, Charge Sheet No. 53/2025 dated 10.03.2025 was filed before the competent court. Therefore, a cognizable offence is clearly established, and the present petition does not fall within any category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6 12. In view of the above, we do not find this to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan