1 2025:CGHC:50797-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1116 of 2024 1 - Prosecutrix Nil. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Gwalani S/o Karamchand Gwalani, R/o Matadevala Ward, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sachchidanand Yadav, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : None. (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (13.10.2025) Per Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/prosecutrix under Section 413 of the B.N.S.S., questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.10.15 10:55:12 +0530 2 27.09.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. H-54/2016, whereby, the respondent No. 2-Rajendra Gwalani has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the prosecutrix is a widow who used to travel daily by train for work, where respondent No. 2-Rajendra Gwalani, would stalk her. The accused subsequently obtained her phone number from somewhere and persuaded her to meet him at Sani Mandir in the village of Tarenga. When she arrived, the accused proposed to her, claiming he was divorced and would take care of her and her child. He filled her hairline with vermilion and assured her that he would marry her according to customs and rituals after obtaining his family’s consent. The accused then established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage by customs and rituals and continued this relationship. One night, when the accused was talking to his wife, the victim realised there had been no divorce between the accused and his wife. When she confronted him, he claimed he had initiated divorce proceedings through the Sindhi Community and would soon obtain a divorce by 04.04.2015 3 and marry her according to customs and rituals and continue the physical relationship under this assurance. On 05.04.2015, when the victim asked about marriage, he fabricated a story; subsequently, she stopped communicating with him. Thereafter, the accused harassed and threatened her, sending menacing messages, posting threatening statuses on WhatsApp, and abusing the victim and her family with offensive language. Then, the appellant/victim lodged an FIR against the accused/respondent No. 2. After due investigation charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 2/accused. 3. From the entire evidence presented in the case, it is quite vivid that the prosecutrix (PW-4) is a 40-year-old widow who has been running a beauty parlour business. It is also clear from her evidence that she knew the accused Rajendra since the year 2011-12 and in this case, as per the First Information Report (Ex.P-35) registered on the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P-2) of the prosecutrix, the incident has been stated to have taken place from 11.01.2014 to 19.05.2016 and the crime has been registered against the accused on 27.05.2016 in which the accused kept on having physical relationship with the prosecutrix by giving assurance of marriage. 4. According to the prosecutrix (PW-4), she has a son, namely 4 Mayank alias Monu, from her husband Sanjay, who has not been examined in Court. According to her own statement, the accused took her to a Shani temple in Tarenga and put vermilion on her forehead. The Prosecutrix twice travelled to Puri with the accused, Rajendra, and described that trip as a honeymoon. Later, the Prosecutrix came to know that the accused had a wife. Even after that, she continued her relationship with the accused. They lived as husband and wife in a rented house of Dr. Jamaluddin Quraishi (PW-3). Firstly, when the prosecutrix lodged a police complaint, the Simga police informed her of a non- cognizable offence under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and advised her to approach a Court. Subsequently, the prosecutrix sought legal advice from a lawyer, enlisted the help of the press and media, and went before the Superintendent of Police, and an application was filed in the Court under Section 156/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, a crime was registered against the accused on her written complaint. After the death of her husband, the prosecutrix was having a dispute with her in-laws in the Court of Nagpur, and the accused had supported the prosecutrix in that. The prosecutrix (PW-04) has also accepted that the accused Rajendra had also filed a complaint against her for extortion and 5 blackmail. Thus, from the entire evidence, it is clear that the prosecutrix is a 40-year-old widow who also has a 17- year-old son from her husband. She was a consenting party with the accused Rajendra for a long time, and later, when a dispute arose between them, a complaint was filed. In this situation, the trial Court found the prosecutrix to be a consenting party, and the accused was acquitted. 5. In such facts and evidence, the trial court has, thus, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge H.L. Sahu