1 2025:CGHC:56703-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3538 of 2025 Tarun Koushik S/o Bisahu Ram Koushik, Aged About 42 Years R/o Arya Colony Road, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mahila Thana Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Victim/ Complainant (Details Are Enclosed In A Sealed Envelope) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, with Shri Karan Kumar Baharani and Shri Vikas Patel, Advocates. For Respondent(s) :Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.24 14:32:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, with Shri Karan Kumar Baharani and Shri Vikas Patel, learned counsels for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been 3led with the following prayer:- “ I. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.06.2025 bearing crime no. 39/2025 registered at Mahila Thana Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for o/ence punishable under section 64, 69, 115(2), 296, 351(2) of B.N.S.S. II. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet bearing no. 57/2025 (Annexure P-1), 9led 15.08.2025 before the learned J.M.F.C. Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner. 3 III. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate First Class Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No 24052/2025 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. IV. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of registration of the case by learned Session Judge Bilaspur District Bilaspur dated 10.10.2025 in session case no. 235/2025, (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2025, Respondent No. 1 registered an FIR on the written complaint of Respondent No. 2 alleging that in August 2013 the petitioner forcibly entered her residence, threatened her with death, and established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage, and that such relations continued from 2013 to 2025 under the same false pretext. It is further alleged that on 28.03.2025, the petitioner again visited her rented house, had physical relations with her, and when she insisted on marriage, he verbally abused, 4 threatened, and physically assaulted her. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered for o=ences under Sections 64, 69, 115(2), 296, and 351(2) of the B.N.S. After investigation, a charge-sheet was 3led on 15.08.2025 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 24052/2025, where cognizance was taken on 20.08.2025; thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge also passed an order of registration/cognizance on 10.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 235/2025, giving rise to the 3ling of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR dated 18.06.2025 and the charge-sheet dated 15.08.2025 are based on false, fabricated, and motivated allegations made solely to extort money from the petitioner, amounting to an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the petitioner is in fact the victim, as the prosecutrix has been continuously blackmailing and harassing him since 2013 by misusing his name on her Aadhaar card, coercing him to pay money, and later demanding ₹20 lakhs and a house under threats of false criminal implication. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix had not dissolved her earlier 5 marriage and has a history of lodging false cases, reCecting her pattern of misusing legal provisions for personal gain. The present FIR is asserted to be a retaliatory counterblast to lawful proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It is also emphasized that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1123/2025 in a previous criminal case initiated by the same prosecutrix, which, according to counsel, reinforces the frivolous and vindictive nature of her allegations. Hence, the present prosecution is malicious, vexatious, and liable to be interfered with. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR contains speci3c and consistent allegations disclosing a prima facie case under Sections 64, 69, 115(2), 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, and the charge-sheet has been 3led after a fair and proper investigation. It is argued that issues relating to consent, relationship, or credibility of the prosecutrix are matters for trial and not grounds for quashing. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, this Court 3nds no ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the FIR or the charge-sheet. The allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable o=ences, and the investigating agency, after due inquiry, has 3led a charge- sheet. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor can disputed questions of fact or the defence of the accused be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing. 8. The parameters governing quashing of criminal proceedings are well-settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing is an exception and should be exercised sparingly, in the “rarest of rare cases”. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116, it has been reiterated that the Court must 7 proceed on the basis of the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and should not embark upon an appreciation of evidence. Further, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court cautioned that defence pleas, disputed facts, and materials requiring evidence cannot be a ground for quashing. 9. Tested on these principles, the pleadings and submissions of the petitioner primarily pertain to disputed facts, questions of credibility, and allegations of mala 3des matters that can be adjudicated only during trial. The mere grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in another connected matter (M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1123/2025) also does not furnish any ground to quash the present proceedings. 10.Accordingly, no case is made out for interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib