1 2025:CGHC:56710-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3528 of 2025 Kamal Kant @ Kamalkant S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Q.No. 2/g Ward No. 30, Road No. 32, Zone-02, Sector-11, Khursipar, Bhilai, Police Station Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Officer-In-Charge Police Station Supela, Durg, Disrict Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Xyz (Name And Details Are In Sealed Envelope) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal and Ms. Bharti Khunte, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.11.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.22 11:55:52 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal (through video conferencing) and Ms. Bharti Khunte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “1) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No.768 of 2024 registered at Police Station supela, Durg, District Durg on 09/07/2024 for alleged offences punishable under Section 376(2) (n). 294,506,323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner. 2) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned Charge Sheet bearing No.563/2025 submitted on 28/01/2025 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, Dist- Durg (C.G.) consequent to the impugned First Information Report. 3) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 28/06/2025 passed by the Ld. Upper Session Judge, (F.T.C.), Durg, Dist- Durg (C.G.), Durg in Criminal Case No. 164/2025 whereby the Learned trial court has taken cognizance of the case on the basis of the impugned Charge Sheet against the petitioner. 4) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12/08/2025 whereby the Learned Upper Session Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, (C.G.) has framed the charges against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under 3 Section 376(2) (n), 294,506,323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner. 5) That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.164/2025 "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Kamalkant Deep" against the petitioner. Copy of entire order sheets of the Criminal Case No.164/2025 "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Kamakant Deep" pending before the Learned upper Session Judge, (F.T.C.) Durg, Dist- Durg (C.G.) containing the impugned order dated 28/06/2025 whereby cognizance was taken and the impugned order dated 12/08/2025 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner 6) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant came in contact with the petitioner through Facebook in November 2022, whereafter the petitioner allegedly obtained her mobile number and began communicating with her frequently through calls and WhatsApp chats. It is alleged that the petitioner expressed his desire to marry her at the very inception of their acquaintance and even visited the complainant’s residence along with his mother, who is stated to have consented to the prospective marriage. The prosecution further asserts that under the pretext of marriage, the petitioner repeatedly induced and persuaded the complainant to 4 meet him at various locations, including Hotel Kunal, Supela on 18.04.2023 and Hotel Pragya on 15 and 16.07.2023. It is the allegation of the complainant that despite her refusal, the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her on these occasions and also clicked her nude photographs, which he later used to threaten her with dissemination in order to coerce her into continued association. 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 05.06.2024, the petitioner brought the complainant to his residence at Khursipar, Bhilai, again on the assurance of marriage, and kept her there until 27.06.2024. During this period, the petitioner is alleged to have repeatedly subjected the complainant to forced sexual intercourse, unnatural acts, physical assault, and mental torture. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner would abuse and beat her when she questioned him about the marriage, would threaten to kill her and her family, and deliberately kept the television volume loud at night so that her cries would not be audible to neighbours. It is further alleged that despite being aware of her medical condition (asthma), the petitioner used to keep mosquito repellent burning beside her pillow, causing her severe discomfort and burning sensations in her eyes. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 768/2024 came to be registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 323 IPC, culminating in filing of the final report and framing of charges against the petitioner. 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, even if accepted in totality at their face value, fails to disclose the commission of any offence whatsoever against the petitioner. The allegations levelled by the complainant are ex facie false, frivolous, fabricated, and inherently improbable. The complainant, being a major, was admittedly in a long-standing consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2023, and any physical intimacy, if at all, was voluntary and consensual. The FIR has been lodged only after the relationship failed to culminate in marriage, demonstrating clear mala fides, vengeance, and personal vendetta. The prosecution case is further tainted by the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the presence of a suspicious common witness Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, who appears under a different name in a previous rape case filed by the same complainant, raising serious doubts regarding the genuineness and credibility of the entire narrative. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings reflect a classic misuse of criminal law, wherein consensual romantic relationships turning sour are sought to be criminalized by styling them as offences under Section 376 IPC 6 (now corresponding BNSS provisions). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2024 INSC 897 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed grave concern over the growing trend of converting long-standing consensual relationships into allegations of rape on the pretext of a failed promise to marry, and held that unless the promise was false from inception and made with a fraudulent intent, no offence of rape is made out. In the present case, the investigation materials fail to establish any dishonest intention on part of the petitioner from the beginning. The charge-sheet is wholly baseless, suffers from fundamental infirmities, and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 323 IPC. Continuation of such proceedings would result in manifest injustice, unwarranted harassment, and unnecessary wastage of judicial time. Therefore, to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure complete justice, the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and order framing charges are liable to be quashed. 7. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Learned counsel for the State submits that the FIR and subsequent investigation against the petitioner have been registered and conducted in accordance with law. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR are serious in nature, involving repeated instances of sexual assault and physical and mental abuse. The complainant has categorically alleged that the petitioner, under the pretext of marriage, coerced 7 her into physical relations despite her refusal and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the matter. The State submits that the investigation has revealed sufficient prima facie material to substantiate the filing of the charge-sheet under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that cognizance of the offences by the trial court was lawfully taken. 8. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that the complainant Ms. Sujata Bagh alias Soumya submitted a detailed written complaint before Police Station Supela alleging that the petitioner had repeatedly established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, subjected her to unnatural acts, blackmailed her with nude photographs, assaulted her, and threatened to kill her and her family members in case she disclosed the matter or insisted on marriage. The complainant alleges that the petitioner and his mother visited her house, assured marriage, and thereafter, on several occasions specifically on 18.04.2023 at Hotel Kunal, Supela, on 15–16.07.2023 at Hotel Pragya and from 05.06.2024 to 27.06.2024 at the petitioner’s residence in Khursipar, Bhilai, the petitioner forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her despite her refusal, threatened her by misusing her photographs, subjected her to verbal and physical abuse, and allegedly committed unnatural acts causing her severe pain. On the basis of these allegations, the police registered FIR No. 768/2024 under 8 Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 323 of the IPC and proceeded to conduct investigation. The charge-sheet records that upon “prima facie” consideration of the written complaint and supporting material, the offences under the aforesaid sections were found to be made out and the matter was forwarded for cognizance. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and upon careful examination of the FIR, the charge-sheet, the statements recorded during investigation, and other material placed on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled by the complainant, taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. The prosecution case specifically narrates repeated acts of forced sexual intercourse, coercion under the pretext of marriage, threats of disseminating private photographs, verbal abuse, physical assault, and other acts amounting to intimidation and cruelty. These allegations, supported by the material collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences registered against the petitioner. 11. At this stage, this Court cannot test the veracity or reliability of the complainant’s statements, nor can it evaluate the defence put- forth by the petitioner, as such contested facts fall squarely within the domain of trial. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that 9 the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide, inherently improbable, or an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court is proper and legal, and no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashment of the proceedings. 12. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet