1 2025:CGHC:46465-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 243 of 2023 Wakeel Ahmed S/o Khalid Ahmed Aged About 46 Years R/o Villa 122, Street No. 650/a1-Heshaimiya, Zone No. 91, A1-Wukair, Qatar ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Supela Police Station, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Xyz Nill ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure as well as Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocates For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.09. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure assisted by Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sangharsh ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.12 10:57:39 +0530 2 Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, submits that she is not responding though he has tried to contact her on several occasions. He further submits that as he has no instructions from his client, therefore, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. Be that as it may, since respondent No.2 is duly represented through her learned counsel, this Court is satisfied that she has due knowledge of the pendency of the present petition in spite of the same, she has not filed any reply/return in the petition. The matter pertains to the year 2023 and has already remained pending for a considerable period of time. In such circumstances, to avoid any further delay in the disposal of the case and bearing in mind the principle that the procedural requirements should not be permitted to defeat the cause of substantive justice, this Court finds it appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the matter. The learned State counsel submits that he has filed return on behalf of the State and also, rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It is well settled that once a party enters appearance through counsel, it shall be deemed to have notice of the proceedings, and the Court is not required to keep the matter pending indefinitely for want of a written reply. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for consideration. 3 5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “a) call for record & proceedings of Crime No.720/2022 dated 3.8.2022 registered with Supela Police Station, Bhillai, District Durg (C.G.) including Charge Sheet No.686/2022 dated 28.9.2022 registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 12215/2022 before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg; b) quash & set aside entire proceedings in Crime No.720/2022 dated 3.8.2022 registered with Supela Police Station, Bhillai, District Durg (C.G.) for offences u/s.376, 376(2)(n) of IPC along with all proceedings arising thereto including proclamation of absconding accused, declaration of reward for finding absconding accused and process for Look Out Circular & Charge Sheet No.686/2022 dated 28.9.2022 registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 12215/2022 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in the interest of justice; c) any other order/relief that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted, in the ends of justice.” 6. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner, Wakeel Ahmed (DOB: 31.08.1976), is a meritorious student having completed B.E. (Metallurgy) in June, 1998 from Government College of Engineering, Pune. After working with Mahindra Ugine 4 Steel Company (1998–2000), he joined Qatar Steel Company at Doha, Qatar in May, 2001 and has been continuously residing and working in Qatar for the last 22 years. His passport and residency permit have been regularly renewed by the competent authorities. Presently, he is employed with M/s. Sustainable Waste Management WLL, Doha, since February, 2020. He is married to Farhana Ayub since 2010 and has three children, all residing with him in Doha. Respondent No.2/first informant is the niece of Arif Ahmed Siddiqui, who was a friend and business associate of the petitioner. In 2018, M/s. Integrated AFR Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated with both petitioner and Arif Siddiqui as directors. At the insistence of Arif Siddiqui, Respondent No.2 was provided employment in the said company and accommodation at Malegaon, Nashik, Maharashtra, in July, 2021. Prior to this, there was no direct contact between petitioner and Respondent No.2. Between September, 2021 and September, 2021, petitioner and Respondent No.2 attended several business meetings at Pune and Malegaon along with Arif Siddiqui and other associates. The petitioner asserts that at no point did he have any physical intimacy with Respondent No.2. Thereafter, due to disputes, Respondent No.2 allegedly misused company email credentials, transferred confidential data, and demanded ransom of ₹25 lakhs along with transfer of petitioner’s farmhouse. On 04.03.2022, Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before Addl. S.P., Malegaon, but no action was taken. On 09.03.2022, she issued 5 legal notices through her counsel against the petitioner as well as against her own maternal uncle, Arif Siddiqui, making inconsistent allegations. In retaliation, petitioner’s father lodged complaint at Malegaon on 28.03.2022, followed by a criminal application before JMFC, Malegaon. Subsequently, on 03.08.2022, Respondent No.2 lodged FIR in Crime No. 720/2022 at Supela Police Station, Durg, Chhattisgarh, alleging offences under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC against the petitioner on the ground that he had physical relations with her at Bhilai in January, 2015 and later at Pune and Malegaon in September, 2021 on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner contends that these allegations are false, contradictory to her previous statements, and made as a counterblast to earlier complaints filed against her. On completion of investigation, charge sheet No.686/2022 dated 28.09.2022 was filed before CJM, Durg in R.C.C. No.12215/2022, prosecuting the petitioner for offences under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.720/2022 registered at Supela Police Station, District Durg, and the consequent Charge Sheet No.686/2022 dated 24.09.2022 culminating in R.C.C. No.12215/2022 before the learned CJM, Durg, is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law, liable to be quashed. It is submitted that: 6 • Contradictory and inconsistent allegations – Respondent No.2 has, from time to time, taken entirely contradictory stands. Her complaint dated 04.03.2022 to Addl. S.P., Malegaon; her advocate’s notices dated 09.03.2022 addressed separately to the petitioner and to her own maternal uncle, Arif Siddiqui; her FIR dated 03.08.2022; her statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. dated 03.08.2022; her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 10.08.2022; and her say in the bail application dated 20.09.2022, all contain mutually destructive versions. A comparative chart annexed with the petition shows that she has changed her allegations each time, rendering her story wholly unreliable. • Absence of allegation in chats and documents – The WhatsApp and IMO chats exchanged between petitioner and Respondent No.2 from August to November, 2021, do not contain even the slightest reference to any physical intimacy, consensual or otherwise. Likewise, her earlier complaint and notices are silent regarding the alleged incident at Dhillon Hotel, Bhilai in December, 2014–January, 2015, which for the first time was introduced in the FIR only to create territorial jurisdiction at Supela Police Station. • Medical and forensic evidence negate allegations – The medical examination conducted on 03.08.2022 clearly opines that no definite opinion regarding recent sexual 7 intercourse can be given. Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 21.09.2022 categorically records that no semen or spermatozoa were detected on the undergarments or vaginal swabs of Respondent No.2. These scientific findings, being unimpeachable, demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case. • Ulterior motive of blackmail – Respondent No.2 herself was demanding transfer of the petitioner’s farmhouse at Malegaon and a sum of ₹25 lakhs, which the petitioner never acceded to. The lodging of the present FIR is a clear counterblast to complaints earlier lodged by the petitioner’s father on 28.03.2022 and the private criminal case dated 19.05.2022 against Respondent No.2. • Delay in lodging FIR – The alleged incident at Sheraton Grand Hotel, Pune (14.09.2021) finds place for the first time in the FIR dated 03.08.2022, lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly one year, which itself is indicative of afterthought and concoction. • Absence of jurisdiction – The allegations relating to Bhilai hotel stay in 2014–15 are demonstrably false, as the petitioner had not even met Respondent No.2 at that point of time. The insertion of such allegation only to create jurisdiction with Supela Police Station is a fraudulent device, and the investigation undertaken thereunder is wholly 8 without jurisdiction. • Unreliable witnesses and sham investigation – The statements of Respondent No.2’s own mother and other so- called witnesses are unnatural and do not inspire confidence. The spot panchnama of Dhillon Hotel, Bhilai, conducted belatedly in 2022 regarding an alleged incident of 2014, is a travesty of investigation. Even the notices issued to Respondent No.2 to produce any corroborative witness or documentary proof met with her categorical reply that she cannot produce any such evidence. • Petitioner’s unblemished background – The petitioner is a highly qualified professional residing in Doha, Qatar, for over two decades with an unblemished record. He is married since 2010 and father of three school-going children. He has never faced any criminal case, either in India or abroad, and enjoys a reputation of integrity in his professional and personal life. 8. It is thus submitted that the allegations are demonstrably false, malicious, and motivated by vengeance, blackmail, and extortion. The prosecution is devoid of any admissible evidence, contradicted by medical and forensic reports, and has been initiated only to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.720/2022 dated 03.08.2022 and the consequential charge sheet No.686/2022 dated 24.09.2022 in 9 R.C.C. No.12215/2022 pending before the learned CJM, Durg. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 15 SCC 385, Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758, Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 11 SCC 398, Sharif Ahmed and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726, Kunal Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765, Rajnish Singh Alias Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2025) 4 SCC 197, Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764 as well as Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 decided on 02.09.2025 to buttress his submissions. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition, as framed and filed by the petitioner, is wholly devoid of merit and substance and therefore deserves to be dismissed in limine. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the FIR, is that respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), alleging that the accused/petitioner on the false pretext of marriage established physical relations with her and thereafter refused to marry. On the basis of the said allegations, and finding prima facie evidence of commission of cognizable offences, the police registered a case 10 against the petitioner under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. The complainant further stated that she had been residing at MIG 1/36, HUDCO Aamdi Nagar, Bhilai, along with her family members until July 2021 and thereafter shifted to Puri I.T.I. Girls Hostel, Kohka, Bhilai. She alleged that the petitioner, a friend of her maternal uncle, established intimacy with her during his visits between 21.12.2014 and 05.01.2015 at Grand Dhillon Hotel, Bhilai, on the promise of marriage. Subsequently, in July 2021, when she went to Malegaon, Maharashtra, for employment in the company “Integrated AFR Pvt. Ltd.” formed by the petitioner and her uncle, the petitioner kept her in the accommodation of his friend and continued to exploit her sexually while refusing marriage. Consequently, she was constrained to lodge the FIR seeking legal action. After registration of the FIR, the police carried out due investigation. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; spot inspection and Patwari map were prepared; articles seized were sent for FSL examination. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner absconded and left for Qatar. Accordingly, absconding panchnama was prepared, his properties were traced, a look-out circular issued, and reward announced. Despite best efforts, he could not be apprehended. Nevertheless, the police, after collecting sufficient evidence, filed a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, where the case is presently pending as R.C.C. 11 No. 1215/2022 for framing of charge. It is submitted that once a cognizable offence is disclosed from the complaint, the police is duty-bound to register FIR and investigate. A plain reading of the complainant’s statement demonstrates specific allegations against the petitioner which prima facie constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC. Since a charge-sheet has already been filed, the petitioner has efficacious remedies available under the Code, such as moving an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. If unsuccessful, he may avail the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Thus, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The police, having followed due procedure of law, found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. The allegations are serious and supported by cogent evidence. The present petition, therefore, is vague, baseless and misconceived. 10. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh & Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 379, has categorically held that at the stage of discharge or quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the sufficiency of evidence. The limited scope is to ascertain whether sufficient material exists for the trial to proceed. In the present case, such material is abundantly available. It is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception, not the rule, and may be 12 exercised only to (i) give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) prevent abuse of the process of Court, or (iii) secure the ends of justice. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any of these grounds. In light of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that instant petition be dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while filing rejoinder affidavit, submits that the return dated 08.02.2024 filed by the State does not meet the specific pleadings raised in Cr.M.P. No. 243/2023 and, therefore, stands impliedly admitted. It is urged that the allegations in FIR No. 720/2022 are false, afterthought and self- contradictory. The petitioner never promised marriage or had physical relations with respondent No. 2, either in 2014–15 at Bhilai or later at Malegaon. Reliance is placed on hotel and travel records, medical examination and FSL reports, all of which negate the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the complainant’s version is inconsistent across her complaint, legal notice, FIR, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and bail proceedings, rendering the allegations unreliable. The plea of petitioner being absconding is also denied, in view of the interim protection granted on 23.02.2023 and anticipatory bail granted on 04.11.2022 and 23.03.2023. Learned counsel contends that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Police Station Supela and the investigation is vitiated by malice and haste. Even on a plain reading, the FIR does not disclose 13 offences under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) IPC, as per the law laid down in Naim Ahmed v. NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89. It is lastly argued that reliance on Aryan Singh (supra) is misplaced. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for quashing FIR No. 720/2022 and charge-sheet dated 28.09.2022 pending before the CJM, Durg. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) while dealing with the similar issue has held as under: “13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The High Court too overlooked the relevant aspects of the matter while rejecting the Section 482 application. It is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more of the the nature particularly, considering allegations that the same doesn't inspire any confidence. There is no good explanation offered, why it took faur years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint. 14. Not only the appellant was dragged into the criminal proceedings but even the 14 parents of the appellant were arrayed as accused. Various other offences have been alleged. This itself makes the entire case doubtful. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint are substantiated by any other independent evidence on record. 15. As stated above, the complaint fails to disclose the date of the incident including the place of the incident, etc. 16. It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled. 17. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the following observations: "34. At this stage, we would like to observe something invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed 15 essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for to wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need and not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is 16 empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRS assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." (Emphasis supplied) 18. There is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of cheating or deception. 19. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 Criminal Law Journal 2990. This Court made the following observations: "18. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good 17 and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within a ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accuse; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly, understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of mis- representation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives. 21. Hence, it is evident that there must be 18 adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time, i.e. at initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact, In order to come within the meaning of the term misconception of fact, the fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance." Section 90, IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her." (Emphasis supplied) 20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (1)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling 19 and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not refuted been by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, refuted justifiably that it cannot be by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal 20 Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)] 21. The fact that the complainant thought fit not to even accept the notice issued by this Court is one additional ground that she was not at all serious right from day one i.e. since the time she decided to lodge the complaint. 22. We need not say anything further in the matter as we are of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. 23. In such circumstances, the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 24. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is The proceedings of Criminal Case No.655/2014 Court of Additional Chief Judicial set aside. pending in the Magistrate are hereby quashed.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), it becomes clear that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly unreliable, self-contradictory and bereft of any corroboration. The complainant has shifted her version on multiple occasions; first in her complaint dated 04.03.2022, then in the legal notices dated 09.03.2022, thereafter in the FIR dated 03.08.2022, followed by her statements under 21 Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and again in bail proceedings, each containing mutually destructive averments. Such inconsistency goes to the very root of the prosecution case and renders it inherently improbable. 15. The unexplained delay of nearly one year in lodging the FIR, the conspicuous silence regarding the alleged incident at Bhilai in her earlier complaints and notices, and the subsequent introduction of this allegation only to create territorial jurisdiction at Supela Police Station, collectively demonstrate mala fides in initiation of the proceedings. The medical report dated 03.08.2022 and the FSL report dated 21.09.2022 unequivocally negating any sexual intercourse further demolish the substratum of the prosecution case. In addition, the demand for transfer of petitioner’s farmhouse and ransom of ₹25 lakhs unmistakably point towards ulterior motive, blackmail and vengeance. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that criminal law should not be permitted to become a tool for personal vendetta or private grudge, and that courts owe a duty to carefully scrutinize attending circumstances, even “reading between the lines”, to prevent abuse of process in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid (supra) and Rajiv Thapar (supra). The present case is a glaring illustration of such abuse, where the allegations do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 376 and 22 376(2)(n) IPC and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose except harassment of the petitioner. 17. The principles enunciated in Naim Ahamed (supra) and very recently in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) further reinforce the position that where allegations are frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by an ulterior design, the High Court must exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice. The distinction between consensual relationship and rape on a false promise of marriage must be examined with great circumspection. In the facts of the present case, there is not even prima facie material to suggest that from the inception the petitioner harboured any mala fide intent to deceive respondent No. 2 on the pretext of marriage. 18. To allow such prosecution to proceed would not only amount to travesty of justice but also result in unnecessary wastage of precious judicial time, which ought to be devoted to genuine and deserving cases. The petitioner, a professional of long standing and unblemished background, working abroad for more than two decades, cannot be compelled to undergo the rigours of a protracted criminal trial on the basis of patently false and malicious allegations. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the present case squarely falls within the parameters for quashing laid down in Rajnish Singh alias Soni (supra), Prashant (supra), 23 and more recently in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra). Continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute gross abuse of the process of law and defeat the ends of justice. 20. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. FIR No. 720/2022 dated 03.08.2022 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, as well as the consequential charge sheet No. 686/2022 dated 28.09.2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in R.C.C. No. 12215/2022, are hereby quashed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu