1 2025:CGHC:55511-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3433 of 2025 Martanda Singh S/o Keshwar Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Amdilundra Police Station Dhaurpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Accused) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Prosecution) 2 - Abc (Details In A Closed Envelops) (Complainant) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.17 10:43:42 +0530 2 Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following prayer: It, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash: 2. “1. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 191/2025 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, CO., for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS. 3. 2. Consequential charge sheet bearing No. 199/2025 dated 17.06.2025 arising out of the aforesaid FIR filed for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 64(2) (m) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 4. 3. The order dated 20.06.2025, 16.09.2025, and other subsequent orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Bilaspur, CG., and the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG., respectively, taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet; 4. All consequential orders arising therefrom and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 216/2025 titled as 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Martanda Singh", pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 appeared at the Police Station on 19.04.2025 and submitted a written report. She stated that after completing her B.E. (Electrical Engineering), she has been preparing for competitive examinations and has been residing with her mother at Tifra Police Colony since 2010. During her preparation for the PSC (Pre) test, she became acquainted with the accused, Martand Pratap Singh, at Chandra Academy, and both 3 developed a liking for each other. They began talking over the phone, and he even introduced her to his family members, expressing that he wished to marry her. Thereafter, Martand started frequently visiting her house. On 13.02.2022, when her mother was not at home, the accused came to her house in the police colony, assured her that he would marry her, and, on the pretext of marriage, forcibly established physical relations with her. Whenever he found her mother absent, he repeatedly had physical relations with her on the same pretext. She further stated that the last such act occurred on 06.10.2024. When he subsequently refused to marry her, both were called for counselling at the Mahila Thana Counselling Centre, Bilaspur, where, in the presence of his family members, the accused executed a stamped undertaking stating that he would marry her in the first suitable muhurat after Holi. On 24.03.2025, the families of both sides also discussed and tentatively agreed upon the marriage; however, the accused has now clearly refused to marry her. On the basis of the written complaint, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, the spot map was prepared, and the complainant was sent for medical and genital examination at District Hospital, Bilaspur, where the lady doctor preserved genital slides and the complainant’s underwear for chemical analysis. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Bilaspur, and the report is awaited; the seizure memo has been enclosed. The spot map from the concerned Halka Patwari has also been obtained. The accused has been absconding continuously since the incident despite all efforts to trace him. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 193(9) 4 BNSS was prepared after obtaining necessary permission of the Court, and Charge-Sheet No. 199/2025 dated 17.06.2025 is hereby submitted for judicial consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged after a considerable and unexplained delay, indicating that it is an afterthought to falsely implicate the Petitioner. It is urged that the parties were in a consensual relationship for over three years, during which the Complainant, a major aged about 36 years, never raised any objection, and the dispute arose only when the Petitioner’s family declined the proposal of marriage on account of the age difference. It is contended that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be converted into a criminal case, and the Complainant cannot invoke criminal law to satisfy personal grievances. It is further submitted that the consent was an informed and voluntary choice, and none of the ingredients of consent vitiated by misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC are satisfied. It is also urged that there is no corroborative or medical evidence supporting the allegations. In such circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to prevent abuse of the process of law and quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 7. Learned State Counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 5 and the investigation has been conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is contended that the complainant has given a detailed account of repeated sexual exploitation by the accused on the false pretext of marriage, supported by a written undertaking executed by the accused before the Counselling Centre, acknowledging his intention to marry her. It is urged that the delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained in the complaint itself, the complainant being under the bona fide belief that the accused would honour his promise of marriage, particularly in view of the families having deliberated on the marriage proposal on 24.03.2025. It is further submitted that the investigation has yielded material including medical examination, seizure of relevant articles, preservation of genital slides, preparation of the spot map, and forwarding of seized articles to FSL, the report of which is awaited. The accused has remained absconding despite repeated efforts, further demonstrating his culpability. The State contends that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to consider only whether the FIR and accompanying material disclose a prima facie case, and disputed questions of fact relating to consent, voluntariness, or the nature of the relationship cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS. It is urged that the contentions regarding consent, delay, or the relationship being consensual are matters for trial and cannot be grounds to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is therefore submitted that the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6 8. Upon consideration of the submissions and the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the relief sought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the FIR, charge- sheet, and consequential proceedings, cannot be granted. Even without adverting to the case diary, which has not been produced or examined, the FIR and the charge-sheet filed after investigation disclose specific and detailed allegations against the accused that he repeatedly established physical relations with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage. The complaint also refers to a written undertaking executed by the accused before the Counselling Centre, lending prima facie support to the allegation that the complainant continued the relationship under the belief that marriage would take place. 9. The explanation for delay in lodging the FIR is contained in the complaint itself, and such explanation cannot, at this stage, be discarded merely on the Petitioner’s assertion of a consensual relationship. Whether the promise to marry was genuine or false, whether consent was voluntary or vitiated by misconception of fact, and whether the relationship was consensual throughout, are all factual issues requiring evidence and cannot be adjudicated within the limited scope of a quashing petition. 10. This Court is mindful that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for trial nor can it be used to test the veracity of disputed facts. The parameters for quashing require demonstration that even assuming the FIR and charge-sheet to be true, no offence is made out. That 7 requirement is not satisfied here. The allegations, taken at their face value, do constitute a cognizable offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The charge-sheet indicates that a lawful investigation was carried out and material was collected sufficient to justify prosecution. At this stage, the Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Jyoti