1 2025:CGHC:59629-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3734 of 2025 Rahul Chandrakar S/o Rajendra Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Palaud, P.S.- Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer - Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Priyanka Dwivedi D/o Late Pawan Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 23 Years R/o Naya Raipur, Sector-12, In Front Of Holly Cross School, Hig-6, Police Station - Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1-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 09.12.2025 1 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.09 16:11:31 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “I. Quash and set aside the FIR dated 16.11.2024 in Crime No. 741/2024 for offence punishable under section 366, 376 (2) (n) of the I.P.C. And section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (Annexure-P/1). II. Quash and set aside the Final Report No. 08/2024 dated 18.01.2025 in Crime No. 741/2024 for the offence punishable under section 366, 376 (2) (n), 201 of the I.P.C. And section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1 FTSC, POCSO, Raipur (C.G.) by the prosecution. (Annexure-P/2). III. Quash and set aside the Cognizance order dated 07.02.2025 by Additional Sessions Judge, 1 FTSC, POCSO, Raipur (C.G.) in pending Special Criminal Case No. 18/2025, Raipur (C.G.). (Annexure-P/3). IV. Quash and set aside the order dated 13.02.2025 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 FTSC, POCSO, Raipur (C.G.) has framed the charges under section 363, 366, 376 (2)(n), 376 (3) and section 4 (2), 5 (1)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. (Annexure-P/4). V. Quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 741/2024 for offences punishable under section 363, 366, 376 (2)(n), 376 (3) and section 4 (2), 5 (1)/6 of POCSO Act, 3 2012 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, 1st FTSC, POCSO, Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioner. VI. Pass such order or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit, proper and just in the fact and circumstances of the present case, to secure the ends of justice” 3 Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was lodged by the complainant on 16.11.2024 stating that she is aged about 21 years, 9 months and 27 days and is a permanent resident of HIG- 6, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.). It is alleged that in the year 2018, when she was studying in Rai Public School, Mana Camp, she came in contact with the present petitioner, who was a friend of her brother Ambrish and frequently visited their house. The petitioner allegedly proposed to her and expressed his desire to marry her. On 19.02.2018, the petitioner is said to have taken the complainant from Raipur to his house situated at village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, and despite knowing that she was below 18 years of age, established physical relations with her. When she later pressed him for marriage, on 22.10.2024 at about 7:30 PM, the petitioner gave her rat poison, which she consumed due to frustration and depression and was thereafter hospitalized. The petitioner forced her to commit suicide and continued physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. 4 On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was registered on 16.11.2024 at Police Station Mandir Hasaud bearing Crime No. 4 741/2024. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application for anticipatory bail before this Court in MCRCA No. 1503/2024, and by order dated 06.01.2025, he was enlarged on anticipatory bail. Subsequently, on 07.02.2025, the prosecution filed the final report before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st FTSC (POCSO), Raipur (C.G.), and on the same day, cognizance was taken against the petitioner. 5 Thereafter, on 13.02.2025, charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against him. It is relevant to note that although summons were issued to the prosecutrix to appear on 19.03.2025 for recording her evidence, she has not appeared before the Special Court till date, as reflected from the certified copies of the order sheets (Annexure P/5). Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 6 On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/Respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix, and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose serious allegations against the petitioner. He contends that the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and framed charges, and no case is made out for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 5 528 of the BNSS. It is therefore urged that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 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 From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the victim lodged a written report alleging that the accused, Rahul Chandrakar, son of Rajendra Chandrakar, resident of village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, repeatedly subjected her to forcible sexual assault since 19.02.2018 on the pretext of marriage. On the basis of her written complaint, a crime was registered and investigation commenced. 9 During investigation, the victim’s genital examination was conducted by a female doctor and her medical report, along with details of her previous treatment, was collected. The victim’s statements were recorded before the Child Welfare Committee, Raipur, before a female police officer, and also before the learned Magistrate. The spot map was prepared, the scene of occurrence was inspected, and statements of material witnesses were recorded. The vaginal slide preserved by the doctor was sent for FSL examination, and though the report is awaited, it shall be filed along with a supplementary challan upon receipt. It further transpires that the accused Rahul Chandrakar was absconding after the incident and was arrested on 12.01.2025, but was 6 released on bail in compliance with the order passed by this Court in MCRCA No.1503/2024. During investigation, the accused was issued notice to produce the underwear worn at the time of incident and his mobile phone, to which he stated in writing that he was not wearing any underwear at that time. Since the accused was found to have concealed material evidence, Section 201 of the IPC was added. The Vivo mobile phone allegedly used by him during the relevant period was produced and seized in the presence of witnesses. The Nazri map of the spot was obtained from the Patwari. 10 After completion of investigation and upon collection of all incriminating material, it was found that the accused had committed the alleged offences, and accordingly, Charge-sheet No. 08/25 was prepared and filed before the competent Court for trial. 11 Further, from a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it is apparent that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the initial incident, became acquainted with the accused through her elder brother. The accused, by repeated assurances of marriage, induced the victim into a relationship and established physical relations with her on multiple occasions, including visits to hotels, under the false promise that he would marry her. The statement further reveals that on 22.10.2024, the accused informed the victim that he was getting 7 married to another girl, made that girl speak to her, and instructed her to forget him. On the same day, during a puja at the victim’s residence, the accused handed her rat poison and induced her to consume it by stating that if she did so, he would marry her the next day. The victim has stated that she consumed the rat poison over the phone in his presence, and subsequently her health deteriorated, necessitating hospitalisation and treatment by her family members. 12 On a plain reading of the victim’s statement, the allegations disclose inducement, deception, exploitation of her minority, repeated physical relations under a false promise of marriage, and abetment to attempt suicide. At this stage, the material on record cannot be discarded or disbelieved. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The concerned authority is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, including framing of appropriate charges against the accused as per the allegations made by the victim. 13 Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings, the documents annexed thereto, the statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, and the material collected during investigation, it is manifest that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of a serious and grave nature. The statement of the victim, who was a minor at the time of the initial incident, clearly 8 establishes that the petitioner, by repeated assurances of marriage, induced her into a relationship and subjected her to repeated physical relations, including visits to hotels, under a false promise of matrimonial commitment. Further, it is evident from her statement that on 22.10.2024, the petitioner informed her that he was getting married to another girl, caused that girl to speak to the victim, and thereafter, during a religious ceremony at the victim’s residence, handed her rat poison and induced her to consume it, stating that if she did so, he would marry her. The victim consumed the poison over the telephone in the presence of the petitioner and subsequently suffered deterioration in her health, necessitating hospitalization and medical treatment. These allegations, if taken at face value, clearly prima facie disclose offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC, Sections 4(2), 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and abetment to attempt suicide. 14 The material collected during investigation including the victim’s medical reports, statements recorded before the Child Welfare Committee, statements of material witnesses, spot inspection reports, seizure of relevant electronic devices, and collection of other corroborative evidence further reinforces the gravity of the allegations. It is also apparent that the petitioner initially absconded but was subsequently arrested and released on bail in compliance with the order passed by this Court in MCRCA No.1503/2024. The petitioner’s conduct, including concealment of 9 material evidence, necessitated the addition of Section 201 IPC to the charges, further underscoring the seriousness of the allegations. 15 It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited and cannot be invoked merely on the petitioner’s contentions, particularly when the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences of a serious nature. 16 At this stage, the Court is not required, nor is it competent, to delve into the merits of the allegations, or substitute its own opinion for that of the trial Court. Interference in such proceedings at the threshold stage, without any demonstrable illegality or material infirmity in the registration of the FIR, taking of cognizance, framing of charges would be contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and object of ensuring fair trial. 17 However, it is stated that the victim has not yet appeared before the trial Court for recording her evidence. The trial Court is accordingly at liberty to take all necessary steps to secure the presence of the victim in accordance with law, including issuing summons, directing her appearance, or taking any other measures as permissible under the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of criminal procedure, ensuring her protection and rights during the trial. 18 Considering the totality of the facts, the seriousness of the offences alleged, the prima facie material available on record, and 10 the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, it is clear that no case has been made out for the quashment of the FIR, the final report, the cognizance order, the order framing charges, or the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 741/2024. 19 Resultantly, the present petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety. 20 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu