1 2025:CGHC:61745-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3812 of 2025 Rouf Ahmad Zargar S/o Mohammad Yousuf Zargar Aged About 40 Years R/o Shankerpora, Gulshan Nagar, Police Station- Nowgam, District Srinagar, Jammu And Kashmir- 190015. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur, C.G. 492101. 2 - Ms. X Y Z D/o A B C (The Details Of The Complainant For The Purpose Of Service Are Provided As Annexure P/3 In A Sealed Envelope To Conceal The Identity Of The Complainant/prosecutrix) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni with Shri Nikhil Kumar Singh, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.19 15:40:54 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/12/2025 1. Heard Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate with Shri Nikhil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 582 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 with the following prayer:- “a) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to allow the present Petition; b) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing the FIR dated 31.07.2025, bearing Crime No. 322/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, against the Petitioner, Rouf Ahmad Zargar, for offences punishable under Section 64, 64(2) (m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the interest of justice; c) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing the Final Report dated 25.09.2025, bearing no. 325/2025 prepared by Station House OfÏcer, PS- Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur (C.G.) and submitted on 29.09.2025, before Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, District - Raipur (C.G.), alleging 3 commission of offences by the Petitioner, which are punishable under Section 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; d) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 41326/2025 between "CG State vs. Roof Ahmed Zargar" where under cognizance has been taken upon Final Report submitted by Respondent No. 1; e) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 373/2025 between "CG State vs. Ruf Ahmed Zargar" where under the case has been received by Ld. Sessions Judge upon committal and has been registered as a Sessions Case and then has been transferred to Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) for its trial as per law. f) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously and kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing entire orders and criminal proceedings pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 373/2025 between "CG State vs. Roof Ahmed Zargar" arising out of FIR dated 31.07.2025, 4 bearing Crime No. 322/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasod,District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, against the Petitioner, Rouf Ahmad Zargar, for offences punishable under Section 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; g) Pass any such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the Petitioner, a senior ofÏcer of NABARD presently posted as Assistant General Manager in Jammu & Kashmir, has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 322/2025 dated 31.07.2025 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising out of a long- standing consensual relationship with the Complainant/ prosecutrix, a well-educated, adult and employee of NABARD, aged about 37 years, who was admittedly aware since 2018 that the Petitioner was a married man and yet voluntarily continued the relationship for nearly seven years, including consensual physical relations; in February 2025, both parties mutually decided to stay together at Hotel Shamrock Greens, Raipur, where the Complainant/prosecutrix stayed willingly 5 without any allegation of force or coercion, however, after the relationship turned sour, the Complainant/prosecutrix first filed a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) complaint dated 08.05.2025, which was closed on 07.07.2025 by the competent committee as non-maintainable while recording that the relationship was long-standing and consensual, and thereafter, as an afterthought driven by malice and personal vendetta, lodged the present criminal complaint after an unexplained delay of nearly six months, leading to submission of a Final Report dated 25.09.2025 based solely on contradictory statements and ignoring material documents, pursuant to which cognizance was taken on 29.09.2025 and the case committed as Sessions Case No. 373/2025, now pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, thereby constituting a clear abuse of the process of law warranting quashment under Section 528 of the BNSS. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned FIR, Final Report and the entire criminal proceedings are a gross abuse of the process of law, having been maliciously instituted by the Complainant/prosecutrix as a retaliatory and vindictive measure after failure of her POSH complaint dated 6 08.05.2025, which was closed by the competent POSH Committee of NABARD on 07.07.2025 with a categorical finding that the relationship between the parties was long- standing and consensual; it is contended that the criminal complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly six months and admittedly only after no action was taken in the POSH proceedings, clearly demonstrating mala fides and personal vendetta, squarely attracting the settled parameters for quashing as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations in the FIR and Final Report are accepted at face value, no prima facie offence under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) or 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out, as there is complete absence of any allegation or evidence of force, coercion or misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage made with fraudulent intent from inception, which is a sine qua non for the offence of rape under Section 63 BNS; it is emphasized that the medical evidence, witness statements and hotel records unequivocally negate any element of coercion, while the prosecution case rests solely on the contradictory, inconsistent and mutually destructive 7 statements of the Complainant/prosecutrix, who is an educated adult and admittedly aware of the Petitioner’s marital status since inception and who herself oscillates between willingness to be a second wife and insistence on divorce, thereby demolishing the theory of deception; learned counsel further submits that the investigation is vitiated by bias, as crucial defence documents including the POSH complaint and closure order were deliberately ignored despite being duly supplied to the Investigating OfÏcer, and no material whatsoever supports the allegation of criminal intimidation; placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 327) and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2020 SC 4535, it is argued that a failed consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into an offence of rape, and therefore continuation of the impugned proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice, irreparable harm to the Petitioner’s reputation, career and family life, warranting quashment of the FIR, Final Report and all consequential 8 proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 5. 5. Per Contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR and subsequent proceedings disclose serious and cognizable offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that the allegations made by the Complainant/prosecutrix, supported by her statements including under Section 183 BNSS, clearly raise triable issues which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS; it is contended that the defence of consent, alleged contradictions, delay in lodging the FIR and reliance on POSH proceedings involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which is the exclusive domain of the trial court; learned State counsel further submits that the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecutrix’s version cannot be tested at the stage of quashing, and the investigation having culminated in a Final Report and cognizance having been duly taken, no case for interference is made out, and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 9 the documents. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, Final Report and material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations disclose a prima facie case involving serious offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the issue as to whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by a false promise of marriage involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the physical relation established by the accused with the complainant was false from inception, as he had not disclosed the fact that he was already married. 8. It is well settled that at the stage of quashing, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate contradictions in statements or assess the reliability of evidence, as held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 591. The defence of the Petitioner that 10 the relationship was consensual, that the promise of marriage was not false from inception, and that the proceedings are mala fide, are matters to be tested during trial. This Court finds that the case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting quashment, and interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. 9. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib