1 2025:CGHC:58510-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 610 of 2025 Lekhraj Tandekar S/o P. R. Tandekar Aged About 32 Years R/o Gali No. R/2 Bashera Colony, Bhartiya Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Station House OfÏcer Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Abc (Details Mentioned In Page No. 125 In Closed Envelop) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.05 10:17:19 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Fauzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 03.12.2025 1. The present WPCR has been filed with the following prayer:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the FIR bearing No. 281/2024, dated 10.06.2024 registered at Police Station - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC and also the entire challan bearing No. 300/2024 dated 09.08.2024 and supplementary challan bearing No. 300-A/2025 dated 03.03.2025 for the offences punishable U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1). 3 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding as criminal case no. 550/2024 parties "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lekhraj Tandekar" (Annexure-P/2). 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.) has framed the charges against the present petitioner for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and registered the Session Case No. 170/2025 parties "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lekhraj Tandekar" (Annexure-P/3). 10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a Government Doctor and was in consensual relationship with the complainant/respondent no. 4. In the meanwhile they developed corporeal relationship between them as a result of which the respondent no. 4 became pregnant and she gave birth to a male child, however, subsequently the petitioner declined to accept the respondent No. 4 as his wife for which 4 she lodged the FIR for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. On completion of investigation, challan filed before the Court of JMFC, Takhatpur, wherein the JMFC took cognizance and registered the criminal proceedings as case no. 550/2024. On committal the learned Sessions Court framed the charge for offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC in Sessions Case No. 170/2025. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that both the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruptions in their personal lives and that she has no wish to support the charge framed against the petitioner or pursue the matter any further. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is an admitted fact that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and out of the said relation a male child was born to respondent No. 4 and when the petitioner declined to accept the respondent No. 4 she lodged the impugned FIR, wherein on completion of the 5 investigation the charge sheet was filed and the charges were also framed against the petitioner. Even the matter travelled upto the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No.11164 of 2024 Dr. Lekhraj Tandekar v State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., which was disposed of by order dated 22.1.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 entered into compromise and they settled the dispute arose between them amicably. 6. Very recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhukar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Another in SLP (Crl.) No. 7212/2025 (decided on 14-7-2025) observed that “the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.” 7. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court further observed at paragraph 7 as under : “7…...The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In 6 these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.” 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated herein above and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would service no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process. 9. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned FIR bearing No. 281/2024 dated 10.06.2024 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, the entire challan bearing No. 300/2024 dated 09.08.2024 and supplementary challan bearing No. 300-A/2025 dated 03.03.2025, as well as the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 whereby cognizance was taken and Criminal Case No. 550/2024 was registered, and 7 further the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 whereby charges were framed in Sessions Case No. 170/2025, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib