1 2025:CGHC:3587-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 243 of 2025 Praveen Yadav S/o Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Railway Colony, Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt Varsha Sonkar W/o Bhupendra Sonkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 25, Dallirajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Mother Of The Victim)(Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.01.2025 1. Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.21 18:03:59 +0530 2 petitioner. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set-a-side the F.I.R. No.214/2024, Dated:18/08/2024, registered with P.S. Rajhara, District Balod, for the offences u/s 308(2), 107, 62 of the BNS, 2023 and section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in the interest of justice; and B) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set-a-side the charge-sheet dated 15/10/2024 filed in the crime no. 214/2024 for the offences u/s 308(2), 107/62, 49 of the BNS, 2023 and section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in the interest of Justice. C) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28/10/2024 whereby the ld. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh has taken the cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and framed the charges against petitioner for offences u/s 308(2), 107/64 of the BNS, 2023 and section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Special Session Trial No. 63/2024, pending before Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh D) That any other relief Hon'ble Court deems feet may also be granted.” 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that on 18.08.2024, the mother of the victim (Respondent no. 2) aged 32 years and a resident of Rajhara, reported to Rajhara Police Station that her elder daughter, 3 aged 12 years, was being harassed by Praveen Yadav. Praveen had developed affection for the victim, coerced her into meeting him, and took a photograph with her against her will. He then blackmailed her, demanding Rs. 4000-5000, and threatened to defame her if she refused. Distressed by this harassment, the victim attempted suicide by hanging herself on 09.08.2024. Based on the written complaint, a case was registered against the accused, and an investigation commenced. Statements from the complainant and witnesses were recorded, and the scene of the incident was examined. The noose used by the victim, which had been cut down by her father and kept at home, was seized. The accused was interrogated, and his statement was recorded, leading to the seizure of the mobile phone used in the crime, which contained the victim's photo. The mobile phone was sealed in the presence of witnesses. The accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the motorcycle used during the incident was confiscated and later returned to the owner under court orders. The victim's statements were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate and the Child Welfare Committee. A site map was obtained from the local Patwari, and medical reports from Jyoti Hospital, Rajhara, and Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai, were collected. The investigation revealed that the accused had pressured the victim into a relationship and blackmailed her with the threat of circulating her photo. Consequently, Section 49 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was added to the case. Subsequently on 15/10/2024, the respondent no. 1 has filed the charge sheet and thereafter on dated 28/10/2024, the learned trail Court has framed charges against the 4 petitioner for the offences under Sections 308(2), 107/64 of the BNS, 2023 and section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. registered against the Petitioner is bad in law and is filed only with ill intentions to harass the petitioner and thus it is liable to be set aside. As per the allegation that has been levied upon the petitioner, the victim has tried to commit suicide and she is alive therefore the offence under Section 107 of the BNS could not be attracted. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to consider that as there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner has threaten the victim into fear to use her picture and therefore the offence of sexual harassment as under POCSO Act is also not made out. In the entire charge-sheet, there is not a single piece of evidence that could form the basis to support the prosecution story and therefore entire allegation is baseless and thus the impugned FIR and Charge sheet may kindle be quashed. The learned trial Court has over looked the fact that the necessary ingredients which need to be present for committing the offences under Sections 308(2), and 107/62 of the BNS, 2023 are missing from the prosecution story as well as from the charge sheet and thus the impugned order dated 28/10/2024 taking cognizance may also be quashed. 5. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 214/2024 dated 18.08.2024 and charge-sheet dated 15.10.2024 and submits that since the charge-sheet 5 has already been submitted in pursuance to the FIR and charges have already been framed, this petition has virtually become infructuous and as such, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that charges have been framed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner for the offence under Section 308(2), 107, 62 of the BNS. The offence under Section 107 of the BNS is for abetment to commit suicide but the same cannot withstand against the petitioner as the victim is alive and no such offence has taken place and as such, the charge framed by the learned trial Court, so far as offence under section 107 of the BNS is concerned, the same is quashed. So far as the other offences are concerned, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offences under Sections 308(2) or 62 of the BNS is made out and as such, we refrain from interfering with the same. 8. As a result, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet