1 2025:CGHC:56066-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2599 of 2025 Shriram Shriwas S/o Late Kirtan Lal Shriwas Aged About 54 Years R/o E. W. S. 200, Maharana Pratap Nagar, P.S. Civil Lines Rampur, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - X (The Details Of Complainant Have Been Provided Separately In Envelope As The Case Pertains To Sexual Offences) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : None Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/11/2025 1 Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2, despite service of notice. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.20 11:29:51 +0530 2 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “(i) Quash the Final Report No 283/25 dated 09.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/1] filed under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS 2023 by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Korba (CG) arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 300/2025 dated 19.05.2025 registered under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS 2023, in the interest of justice. (ii) Quash the order taking cognizance dated 16.07.2025 (ANNNEXURE-P/2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in Criminal Case No. 5420/2025, in the interest of justice. (iii) Quash the order dated 23 07.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/3), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba passed order of committal of case to Sessions Court, in the interest of justice. (iv) Quash the order dated 287.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/4). whereby the learned Sessions Court Korba registered the case as Sessions Case No. 81/2025 and transferred the same to court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba (CG) and also all the further proceedings arising there from, in the interest of justice. (v) That, any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in the interest of justice. 3 (vii). That, the Petitioner is the resident of the address as mentioned above in the cause title That, petitioner is a practicing advocate and has been practicing law for past 27 years at District Court Korba” 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the complainant i.e. the Respondent No 2 lodged written complaint dated 19.05.2025 with the police stating therein that, she was a married women and her husband had thrown her out of his home and for claiming maintenance, she engaged petitioner as her lawyer. She further stated that because of pending case and of being of same caste, the complainant used to meet petitioner and petitioner showed his intention to marry her. In the year 2020, the petitioner called complainant for lunch at his home and his family was also there. The petitioner after lunch took complainant to first floor of his house, and on pretext of marriage made physical relations with her. Thereafter he continued to make physical relations with complainant and subsequently on refusal to marry, the report has been lodged. 4 Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the said complaint, the police registered FIR bearing Crime No. 300/2025 dated 19.05.2025 registered under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS 2023 at Police Station Civil Lines Korba against the petitioner and arrested the petitioner on same day i.e. 19.05.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred application for grant of bail for his release before the First Additional Sessions Judge Korba vide Bail Application No. 294/2025 and vide order dated 22.05.2025, the application preferred by petitioner was allowed and petitioner was directed to be released on bail. 4 5 Mr. Patel next submits that the complainant is distant relative of petitioner more particularly, she is sister-in-law (wife's sister) of petitioner, she is 42 years old and have two children, one girl aged about 23 years and one boy aged about 20 years. The complainant initially approached petitioner for filing of case against her husband claiming maintenance, which was filed by petitioner and in which petitioner was her advocate. Other than the case of maintenance, the complainant had taken house of one P.L. Naidu on rent alongwith one Himant Kumar Vaishnav. Both of them were living in live in relationship, as they themselves have executed afÏdavit regarding same. Serious complaints were made against complainant and said person by localities regarding illegal activities being carried out by complainant alongwith said person. On complaint made by local persons in the year 2024, the police took action under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and the said house was sealed and complainant was removed from said house. In said case also, petitioner defended complainant before the competent authorities. Since the complainant was removed from said house in view of the aforementioned proceedings, the complainant requested for arrangement of alternate accommodation, the petitioner being distant relative, in good faith arranged accommodation on rent for complainant, in which she started residing with her children. Subsequently complainants daughter wanted to have a phone on loan and petitioner helped her get a new phone on loan from his personal account on her assurance that she will pay the EMI timely. After few months, it came to knowledge of petitioner that complainant is not paying the rent of house which was arranged by petitioner and EMI of phone was also not being paid by complainant’s daughter to petitioner which was getting deducted from petitioner’s account. The petitioner confronted the complainant and her daughter regarding the same, on which the 5 complainant and her daughter abused petitioner and used filthy language. The petitioner being aggrieved made compliant to the Police Station Civil Lines Korba on 19.3.2025, to which the police refused to register the complaint as per Section 174 of BNSS on 19.3.2025. 6 Mr. Patel further submits that because of the aforesaid situation, the complaint developed grudge against the petitioner and his family member and in order to seek revenge, the complainant alongwith his son Gaurav Shriwas assaulted petitioner's son namely Dev Kumar Shriwas on 26.04.2025 while he was returning from medical store. The petitioner's son lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 245/2025 against the complainant and her son under Section 127(1), 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS 2023 on 26.04.2025. Because of the said registration of the FIR, the complainant made pressure on petitioner for taking back the complaint or else she would lodge a false case against the petitioner. Since petitioner refused to take back the complaint, the instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 7 Mr. Patel submits that being aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the petitioner preferred CRMP No. 2287/2025 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the FIR, however the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition vide order dated 22.7.2025 as Final Report No. 283/25 dated 09.07.2025 filed under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS 2023 was filed by the by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Korba. After filing of the Final Report by the police before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same vide impugned order dated order dated 16.07.2025 and subsequently vide impugned order dated 23.07.2025, the learned Magistrate passed order of committal of case to learned Sessions Court. After committal of case 6 to Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge Korba re-registered the case as Sessions Case No. 81/2025 vide impugned order dated 28.7.2025 and transferred the same to court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba for commencement of trial. The entire case is false and fabricated one just to take revenge from the petitioner and as such, this petition deserves to be allowed. 8 On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that when prima facie a congnizable offence was found to have been committed, the FIR was registered, the investigation has been completed and the matter is subjudice before the learned trial Court and as such, at this stage, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, he prays that this petition be dismissed. 9 From bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the allegation of the respondent No. 2/complainant is that she was lured by the petitioner and the petitioner made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. It is also stated that the respondent No. 2/complainant requested the petitioner to marry her but the petitioner taking advantage of being a lawyer, refused to marry her. 10 From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that both the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No. 2 are distant relatives and at one point of time, the petitioner was the counsel for the respondent No. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2/complainant is a married lady aged about 42 years having two children one daughter aged about 23 years and another son, aged about 20 years. The respondent No. 2 herself was proceeded under Section 145 Cr.P.C. She was in touch with the petitioner as the petitioner was her counsel. The first incident of physical relationship is said to have taken 7 place in the month of August, 2020 and the FIR was lodged on 19.05.2025 i.e. after about 5 years. The respondent No. 2/complainant has taken a stand that she was exploited for about 5 years on the pretext of marriage. 11 Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant. It is not clear as to whether the respondent No. 2/complainant was a divorcee and in case she was not legally divorced, she was well aware that she could not marry the petitioner but she still made physical relationship with the petitioner and she was aware of the consequences as she is a major lady. It also transpires that the there had a scufÒe between the son of the petitioner and the son of the complainant for which an FIR was lodged on 26.04.2025. The complainant had also not paid the rent of the accommodation which was provided by the petitioner and further, the payment of EMI was also not being made with respect to the mobile phone purchased for the daughter of the complainant. When this conduct of the complainant was objected, the petitioner was threatened for which the petitioner had also made a complaint on 19.03.2025. 12 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of 8 powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13 In a well-celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others, {AIR 1992 SC 604} the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. 9 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14 It appears that there had been FIRs and counter FIRs by both the parties and even if it is assumed that there had been any physical relationship between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent, that would definitely be consensual as both the parties were aware of the marital status of each other but still their relationship existed. There appears to be no element of cheating or deceit as the complainant herself is a married lady and the FIR, the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The present is a case where the complainant/respondent No. 2 has tried to wreck vengeance against the petitioner on account of her personal disputes. 15 As such, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the Final Report No. 283/2025, dated 09.07.2025 arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 300/2025 dated 19.05.2025 registered under Section 69, 351(3) of BNS 2023, the order taking cognizance dated 16.07.2025 (ANNNEXURE-P/2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in Criminal Case No. 5420/2025, the order dated 23.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/3), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 10 First Class Korba passed order of committal of case to Sessions Court,and the order dated 28.7.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/4) whereby the learned Sessions Court Korba registered the case as Sessions Case No. 81/2025 and transferred the same to court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom. It is ordered accordingly. 16 Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet