1 2025:CGHC:58500-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3662 of 2025 Mithlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Lalaram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Hardi, Police Station Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Xyz (Since The Victim Belong To The Gond Community And Therefore Her Has Not Been Disclosed In The Instant Petition) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.2- State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 3 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:13:16 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “(i) Impugned FIR dated 14.03.2025 bearing Crime No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Section 69, 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner. (ii) The charge sheet dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) Special Judge (SCST Act) Balod District Balod in Special Case No. 33/2025. (iii) Impugned cognizance order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) and entire criminal proceedings pending in Special Sessions Case No. 33/2025 before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Balod, District Balod against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iv) Impugned Final Report/Challan No. 79/2025 dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) submitted by Police Station Gunderdehi District Balod before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Balod against the petitioner.” 3. Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in Special Sessions Case No. 33/2025 arising out of Crime No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi. Since the charge-sheet (Final Report No. 79/2025) had already been 3 filed, the first petition filed on 09.09.2025 was withdrawn on 17.09.2025 with liberty. The second petition, Cr.M.P. No. 3421/2025, was also withdrawn on 17.11.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition. 4. As per prosecution, between 10.05.2024 and 10.03.2025, the petitioner allegedly had sexual intercourse with the complainant on a false promise of marriage, constituting an offence under Section 69 IPC. Respondent No. 1 lodged a written report which was registered as Crime No. 52/2025, later exhibited as P-14 before the trial Court. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet and the learned Special Judge took cognizance on 14.05.2025. The police filed charges under Sections 69, 115(2) BNS and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, but the trial Court framed charges under Sections 351(3), 318(4) BNS and 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. The petitioner denied the charges and the matter was fixed for evidence on 25.10.2025. 5. Mr. Jha further submits that on 13.10.2025, the victim filed a compromise application, which she later expressed her desire to withdraw. Her statement was recorded on 14.11.2025, where she categorically stated that although there was a love affair, no incident as alleged ever took place. She denied lodging any written complaint, denied her police statement (Ex. P-13), and stated that her signatures were taken by the police without reading over the contents. She further denied any sexual 4 relationship, assault, fraud or threat by the petitioner. She was declared hostile, but even in cross-examination she did not support the prosecution case. The prosecutrix’s testimony thus completely demolishes the allegations, and no ingredients of the alleged offences survive. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.2, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the trial is already at an advanced stage, wherein a substantial part of the prosecution evidence has been recorded. It is further pointed out that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded on 14.11.2025, and although she has turned hostile, the prosecution is still in the process of examining the remaining material witnesses. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the proceedings. The trial is already at an advanced stage, and the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded. Whether her hostility demolishes the prosecution case or affects its evidentiary worth are matters to be assessed by the learned trial Court during 5 the course of trial. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed factual aspects, including appreciation of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the effect of her retractions, which cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 BNSS. Interference at this stage would amount to undertaking a premature evaluation of evidence, which is impermissible. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS is dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible grounds before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage, and the trial Court shall proceed uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu