1 2025:CGHC:3218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 67 of 2025 Dibyanshu Swain S/o Dibakar Swain Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhowray's House Near Panchadham Mandir, Tatibandh, Raipur C.G. .. Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kabir Nagar Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 – XYZ, Details of Respondent is under the closed envelope. ... Respondent For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. Heard finally. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023, for seeking quashment of charge- sheet filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), 2 Raipur and charge dated 06.12.2024 in Sessions Trial No.266/2024 under Section 376(2)(k)(n), 506(2) and 323 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of this case are that both the concerned parties are medical practitioner at AIIMS, Raipur and met the petitioner at the same work place, where they become friends. Subsequently, the petitioner/applicant visited I.C.U AIIMS for regular checkup of one of his patient and they exchanged phone numbers. On 29.09.2023, the respondent/complainant met the petitioner as she was discharged from the hospital and they decided to watch a movie, but due to rain the petitioner took the respondent/complainant to his rented house where the petitioner proposed the respondent/complainant and forcefully made physical relation against the her will. Also the respondent /complainant stayed in the same room for the entire day. The next day the petitioner disclosed that he had made a video of the incident and started threatening the respondent /complainant to be in the same physical relation continuously and if she refuse, then he will make the video viral. Further on the context of marriage the petitioner clearly refused to marry her. Furthermore, the petitioner started strangling, slapping the respondent / complainant and also dragged her out of the house. 4. The matter was reported before the concerned police station. Thereafter, the matter taken up for investigation. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the trial court. 3 After filing the charge-sheet, learned Trial Court has framed the charge under Sections 376(2)(k)(n), 506 and 323 of IPC against the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner contended that the order passed as aforesaid by the learned trial court is misconceived on face of the record, however, even if the prosecution case is taken as it no case under Sections 376(2)(k)(n), 506 and 323 of IPC is made out against the present petitioner, therefore, he is entitle for discharge from the above mentioned offence. He further contended that the actual case is like that both the parties were medical practitioners at AIIMS, Raipur and got their phone numbers exchange only for the professional talks whereas the Respondent/Complainant firstly brought up the outside meeting and friendship between them in the conversation, further the proposal of liking and marriage was also put up by the Respondent herself and later on refusal to Respondent's proposal of marriage a false allegation was build up therefore, the entire prosecution story is highly doubtful. He further contended that it is clear from the F.I.R that incident took place from 29/09/2023 to 29/11/2023 whereas the F.I.R was registered on 26/08/2024 which clearly shows the after thought process to frame an incident and mobile phone of the applicant has also has been seized by the police on 27.08.2024, but there is no video has been recovered by the police about the incident, therefore, no case under the said offence made against the petitioner, therefore, he is entitle for discharge from the above mentioned offence. 4 He further contended that the entire case is also not supported by MLC (Medical Legal Certificate) Report which clearly states that there are no sign of sexual violence against the complainant, therefore, the entire prosecution story is highly doubtful. It is therefore, prayed that Sessions Case No. 266/2024 pending before Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur may kindly be quashed and petitioner may kindly be discharge from the charge, in the interest of justice. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the Sessions Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the facts of the case, the victim of this case has lodged the FIR against the applicant/accused for committing rape on the pretext of marriage. It is also alleged that the applicant has made a video of the incident and started threatening to the complainant/victim to make physical relation and if she refused, then he will viral the said video. 9. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case and well settled principle of law, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Sessions Trial No.266/2024 by the accused/petitioner cannot be allowed because the record shows that the accused made the physical relation under the false promise of marriage with the complainant. The 5 description clause 1 of Section 375 of the IPC operates with respect to committing any sexual act against her will and secondly without her consent. Meaning thereby the consent and will must be a free will and free consent. In this case, prima facie it appears that the accused has made physical relationship with the complainant on giving false promise, therefore, it cannot be stated to be under the free consent and free will and it is a matter of trial that whether it is free will or free consent and this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS cannot go into it. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 376(2)(k)(n), 506(2) and 323 of IPC, as quashing of the proceedings at this stage would amount to stop the trial at the very inception, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not justified. Therefore, the CRR filed by the petitioner/applicant is dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant