1 2025:CGHC:43822-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2706 of 2025 Anand Ji Singh S/o Late Nand Ji Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o 03, Vargis Colony, Phase- 2, Dharampura, Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur 2 The Station House Officer, Police Station Gidam, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 3 Xxxxxx (Prosecutrix) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.29 18:00:29 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/08/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court inherent exercise may be to its pleased jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the SSIDerecords and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing entire charge sheet including the FIR No.51/2025 under Section 64(1), 351(2) of BNS and in consequences quash the order of taking cognizance dated 21.07.2025 taken by CJM and order dated 01.08.2025 for taking cognizance by the Sessions Judge and entire criminal case (i.e. Sessions case no. 148/2025 between State Vs. Anand Ji 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.” 2. Facts of the case is that a complaint has been made on 3 26.05.2025 by the respondent no. 3, before the respondent no. 2 police station making averments therein that respondent no. 3 has married in 2011 and after few years of her marriage her husband has tortured her for that they were not having good relationship between them and in the year 2018 she came in contact with the petitioner and they became friends and the petitioner has informed her that he is also married man but his relationship with his wife is not good and he is also residing separately. Further averred in the complaint that the petitioner has made promise to marry the prosecutrix and made physical relationship with her and the said relationship continued for several years and also alleged that three times she got pregnant and her pregnancy has been terminated by forcing her to consume medicines and also alleged that the petitioner has also recorded the obscene videos and based on which the petitioner has made physical relationship with her and the basis of the said complaint, the police has registered the FIR bearing number 51/2025 dated 26.05.2025 under section 64(1), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet before the learned CJM, where the CJM has taken 4 the cognizance by way of order dated 21.07.2025 and thereafter committed the case before the Sessions judge, where the learned sessions judge by way of order dated 01.08.2025 has taken the cognizance and registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation the relationship is for more than 7 years and consensual and complainant is a major lady and subsequent declination from marriage does not constitute the offences. He further submits that the complainant after establishing the physical relationship with petitioner and recorded the same, thereafter used to extort money from the petitioner and for which FIR has also been registered against her in the same police station and in order to save herself, the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. He further prays for quashment of the FIR, charge sheet and further proceedings. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that in the case in hand the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned competent court hence, the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this juncture. 5 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73 (supra), 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 FIR./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 FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 7. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioner that, after developing acquaintance through social media, he gained her confidence by giving false assurance of marriage and thereafter subjected her to repeated sexual assault against 6 her will. It is further alleged that, on account of such relations, she became pregnant on three occasions and was compelled to undergo termination of pregnancy under pressure from the accused. The FIR also discloses allegations of secretly recording of obscene videos of the complainant, threats of circulation of the said videos, and intimidation to her and her family members with dire consequences. 8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences under the Penal Code. The accusations are specific and serious, involving sexual assault on the pretext of marriage, repeated physical relations, forced termination of pregnancy, threats and criminal intimidation. Such allegations warrant investigation and trial, and cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 528 of BNSS. 9. This Court finds no ground to quash the FIR. petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.” Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Gowri