1 2025:CGHC:56747-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2088 of 2025 Ashish Kashyap S/o Parmanand Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 12, In Front Of Nehru Garden, Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 2 - Xyz Nill Respondent(s) CRR No. 30 of 2022 Ashish Kashyap S/o Parmanand Kashyap Aged About 23 Years R/o Opp. Nehru Garden, Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chahttisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abc D/o Def Ghi, R/o Jkl (Correct Name, Age And Address Given By The Applicant In Sealed Envelope With The Case) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, PL Victim :- The Victim appeared through VC RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.24 18:02:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 21/11/2025 1. The CRMP No. 2088/2025 under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer:- “(i) Entire Criminal Proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 54/2025, pending before the learned Additional sessions Judge (F.T.C), Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (ANNEXURE P-1) (ii) Committal order dated 03.06.2025 and cognizance order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 406/2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pamgarh District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (ANNEXURE P-2) (iii) Final Report bearing no. 75/2025 dated 03.05.2025 submitted by the Police Station-Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 62/2025 registered on 07.03.2025, under section 376(2) (N) of Indian Penal Code. (Annexure P-3). (iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit may also be kindly passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (v) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. ” 2. The Criminal Revision No. 30/2022 has been filed by the petitioner for 3 the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and quash the charges framed under Section 376 (2) () of the Indian Penal code against the applicant on 26/10/2021 in Sessions Trial no. 78/2024 & discharge the applicant, in the interest of justice” 3. Facts as emerging from the complaint are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted a written application alleging that the petitioner Ashish Kashyap induced her into a physical relationship on the false assurance of marriage. It was alleged that on 09.01.2021, the petitioner took her to Korba on the pretext of an outing and thereafter arranged a rented accommodation at Premnagar, Police Station Kusmunda, where he kept her for about one month and repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse under the guise of a promise to marry. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly left her and returned to his home without fulfilling the promise. On the basis of the complaint, a prima facie case under Section 376(1) of the IPC was found, and an FIR was registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR No. 62/2025 is false, malicious, and a result of pre-meditated intent, as evident from the complainant’s previous conduct and the earlier FIR No. 100/2021 lodged on identical allegations by the same complainant, in which Sessions Trial No. 78/2021 is already pending. The contradictory statements of the complainant, her affidavit denying any physical 4 relationship, her subsequent hostile statements, repeated demands for money, threats to implicate the petitioner, and inconsistencies in her own age collectively show clear abuse of process. The present FIR does not satisfy any condition permitting a second FIR, and compelling the petitioner to face another trial on the same allegations would be unjust, particularly when the impugned order has been passed mechanically without proper judicial application of mind. Learned counsel would further submits that the framing of charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC is wholly unjustified, as the charge-sheet lacks any material satisfying the ingredients of the offence. The prosecutrix herself executed an affidavit acknowledging a friendly relationship, both parties had applied for marriage registration, and her versions before different authorities are materially contradictory, clearly indicating false implication owing to parental pressure. It is urged that the trial court failed to consider these basic infirmities and the broad probabilities of the case, and mechanically proceeded to frame charges contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the reply filed by the prosecution specifically records that the DNA examination has conclusively established the petitioner as the biological father of the child delivered by the complainant. This scientific finding directly supports the allegations in the FIR and lends strong corroboration to the prosecutrix’s version. In view of such clear and credible evidence, the plea of the 5 petitioner that the allegations are false, fabricated, or motivated is prima facie untenable. It is therefore contended that no case is made out for quashing or interfering with the investigation or the ongoing criminal proceedings. 6. The victim has appeared through video conferencing before this Court and has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the entire record, this Court finds that the primary challenge raised by the petitioner namely, that the second FIR is false, malicious, and barred cannot be accepted at this stage. The allegations made in both FIRs pertain to distinct periods and relate to the conduct of the petitioner in continuing the physical relationship under the promise of marriage. Whether the allegations overlap or are motivated are issues of factual determination best left to the trial court after appreciation of evidence. 9. The petitioner’s reliance on alleged contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix, the affidavit purportedly executed by her, and inconsistencies regarding her age are not grounds sufficient to invoke the inherent or revisional jurisdiction of this Court. These issues concern matters of defence, credibility, and weight of evidence, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated without a full-fledged trial. 6 10. On the other hand, the reply filed by the State brings on record the DNA report which conclusively establishes that the petitioner is the biological father of the child delivered by the complainant. Such scientific evidence provides strong prima facie corroboration to the prosecution case and substantially weakens the contention of the petitioner that the allegations are fabricated or motivated. 11. The scope of judicial interference at the stage of cognizance, committal, investigation, or framing of charges is extremely limited. Unless the material on record is wholly insufficient, absurd, or incapable of constituting the alleged offence, the Court cannot quash proceedings or discharge the accused. In the present matter, the FIR, complaint, statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, medical evidence, and the DNA report cumulatively provide adequate material to proceed with the trial. 12. The framing of charge in Sessions Trial No. 78/2021 also does not suffer from any illegality. The trial court has considered the material contained in the charge-sheet and has found sufficient grounds to proceed under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. At the stage of framing of charge, a meticulous analysis or weighing of evidence is impermissible. The contentions raised by the petitioner are in the nature of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined in revisional jurisdiction. 13. In view of the above discussion, and keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the allegations as well as the corroborative scientific evidence 7 available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 54/2025 or for setting aside the charges framed in Sessions Trial No. 78/2021. Both petitions are accordingly found to be devoid of merit. 14. Accordingly, both the CRMP as well as the Criminal Revision Petition stand dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Amardeep