1 2025:CGHC:56704-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3545 of 2025 Avesh Tamrakar S/o Nirmal Tamrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Sundar Nagar Bemetara Police Station Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O,cer, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Xyz (The Name And Prescription Of The Complaint Is In Closed Envelop) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.24 14:32:16 +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 Ganesh Ram Burman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been 7led with the following prayer:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned No.634/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the alleged o0ences under Section 376 & 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1). 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned 7nal report No.615/2025 dated 15-07- 2025 7led by the Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Annexure P-2). 3 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge framed against the petitioner dated 09-09- 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T.No.193/2025 for the o0ence under Sections 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-3). 4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding bearing S.T.No.193/2025 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P- 4).” 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that between 10.07.2021 and 05.06.2025, the petitioner allegedly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on several occasions on the alleged false promise of marriage, on the basis of which the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, leading to registration of the o?ence. After investigation, the police 7led a charge-sheet on 15.07.2025 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, where the matter was registered as S.T. No. 193/2025. The learned 4 trial Court thereafter took cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner for the o?ence under Section 376(2) (n) IPC, and committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has 7led the present petition seeking quashment of the charge-sheet, the order of cognizance, the order framing charges, and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 193/2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges framed by the learned trial Court arising out of the charge- sheet in Crime No. 634/2025, as well as the cognizance order, are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is urged that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted on its face, the conduct of the prosecutrix clearly demonstrates that she was a consenting party, as she voluntarily remained in a relationship with the petitioner for a continuous period of more than four years, from 10.07.2021 to 05.06.2025. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is a major, about 26 years of age, well educated, fully aware of the consequences of her actions, and despite such knowledge, she willingly continued the 5 relationship with the petitioner. Counsel further points out that this Hon’ble Court has already granted the petitioner regular bail vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 5169/2025 (Annexure P-5), and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause grave and irreparable harm to the petitioner. It is argued that the present prosecution is malicious in nature and the impugned proceedings, including the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the charges framed, deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the FIR and charge- sheet disclose a clear prima facie case under Section 376(2) (n) IPC, and issues of consent or the nature of the relationship are matters for trial, not for quashing. It is argued that the investigation was proper, the trial Court rightly took cognizance and framed charges, and therefore no interference is warranted. The petition is stated to be devoid of merit. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the considered view 6 that the present matter does not fall within the limited parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. The allegations in the FIR, prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the o?ence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. At this stage, the Court cannot undertake a detailed assessment of the evidence or determine whether the relationship was consensual, as such issues require appreciation of evidence during trial. The contention of the petitioner that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, or that the relationship was voluntary and prolonged, involves disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot adjudicate under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 10. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that at this stage the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or examine the defence of the accused (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 733). Since cognizance has already been taken and charges have been framed by the learned Sessions Court after due application of mind, no ground is made out 7 to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings. 11.It is also relevant that the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 5169/2025, and therefore no exceptional circumstance exists warranting quashing of the proceedings at this stage. The charge-sheet has been 7led after due investigation, and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges upon 7nding su,cient material to proceed. 12.In view of the above, this Court 7nds no perversity, illegality, or abuse of process of law in the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, no ground is made out for quashing the charge-sheet, the cognizance order, or the charges framed against the petitioner. 13.Accordingly, the CRMP stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib