1 2025:CGHC:1639-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 102 of 2025 Rishikesh Kuldeep S/o Arjun Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Mahant Mohalla, Ward No. 2, Gevra Project, Deepka, Dist.- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge, Police Station Deepka, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 2 - Abc ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Baghel and Mr. Gajanand Ratre, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Niraj Baghel and Mr. Gajanand Ratre, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.11 11:22:25 +0530 2 Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “A. Allow the present Petition and quash/ set aside of the FIR No. 328/2024 dated 25.10.2024 registered at Deepka Police Station, Dist. Korba ["Impugned FIR"] under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"] and all consequential proceedings along with chargesheet arising out of or emanating therefrom (Annexure-P/1); B. Any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the complainant was working in a hotel/restaurant; the petitioner used to visit there. Thus, they came to know each other. It is alleged thatin the month of December 2023, the accused/petitioner came to her in the restaurant by his car and promised to marry with her thereafter at 19:00 hours at Dhurena Ground near graveyard committed sexual intercourse with her in his car. On the same night about 22:00 hour, at his brother's house, again he committed sexual intercourse against her will, thereafter in the morning he left her at the restaurant. The accused/petitioner committed sexual intercourse on the multiple occasions since December 2023 to September 2024. It is also alleged that on 09.09.2024, the accused/petitioner took her to the house of his grandparents (Nana-Nani) at Binjhara. The marriage was 3 performed at Rajgwalin Temple and thereafter Marriage agreement was also executed. The accused/petitioner assured her that their proper marriage will be solemnized later on at his house. Further the accused/petitioner kept her at rental house at Kashinagar Korba. It is allegedly stated that the accused/petitioner has left her and ran away. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against petitioner. The petitioner/accused used visit the restaurant where the prosecutrix was working. Thus, they were familiar and known to each other. Subsequently they fell in love in the year 2023. they both had strong love bond that they used to go for outing. Since they were in love and wanted to marry each other however it was not easy for them to get married because they were from different castes therefore, they got married at Rajgwalin Temple, Binjhara, Korbaby performing all rituals in front many relatives and friends of petitioner. Since both of them are from different castes. They had to perform their marriage at temple. On 19.09.2024, the petitioner and prosecutrix executed their personal affidavit by stating that they are married and they will perform all their duties as required in marital life and live together as husband and wife. Thus, the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship. On 19.09.2024, the petitioner and prosecutrix executed marriage agreement stating 4 that they will live as husband and wife since they are married at Rajgwalin Temple, Binjhara. It was clearly stated in the marriage agreement that the child born out of this wedlock will be their legal heir and successor. They are a married couple and due to their personal dispute the prosecutrix has falsely made a complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the complainant / respondent No. 2 has concealed and suppressed the critical fact and police has wrongly registered FIR without any preliminary enquiry and charge-sheet has also been submitted in pursuance to the same. 6. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned State Counse opposes the prayer for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet along with FIR No. 328/2024 dated 25.10.2024 and submits that since the charge- sheet has already been submitted in pursuance to the FIR, this petition has virtually become infructuous and as such, the same may be dismissed. Further, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are matter of evidence and shall be produced before the appropriate forum during the trial. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the charge-sheet has already been filed in pursuance to the FIR registered by the complainant, as such, at this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant the relief sought for in the present petition by 5 the petitioner as the charge-sheet prima facie discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, further, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are matter of evidence and shall be prodpuced before the appropriate forum during the trial. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet