1 2025:CGHC:6959-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 506 of 2025 1 - Amit Vaishnav S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No.1297/66, Professor Colony, Sector-3, Street No. 01, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station- Mohannagar Durg, District- Durg (C.G.). 2 - Xyz Nil ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dubey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07-02-2025 1. The present petition has been filed with following prayer:- “(i) To kindly quash the FIR bearing No.495/2024 dated 05.10.2024 registered at Police Station Mohannagar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and also the entire charge sheet bearing no. 448/2024 dated 18.12.2024 for the Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. (ii) To kindly quash the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 whereby the learned Additional District & Session Judge F.T.C. Durg (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding as criminal case No. Session Trial/12/2025 pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Session Judge F.T.C. Durg (C.G.) in the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh vs. Amit Vaishnav”. (iii) And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in fact and circumstance of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the petition are that, the complainant/victim gave a written complaint at police station Mohannagar Durg (C.G.), wherein she has stated that in the year 2020 petitioner got introduced with the complainant through the means of Face Book, after that they started talking to each other. On 25-09-2021 after the consent of both the families relation between the petitioner and the complainant was fixed. After that the petitioner by saying that he loves the complainant and will marry her on the pretext of marriage from 30-09-2021 to 02-03-2024 established physical relation with the complainant even after her refusal. On 02-03-2024 the petitioner has 3 established physical relation with the complainant for the last time. From the year 2021 to 2024 everything was fine between both the parties and on March, 2024, when the petitioner went after meeting the complainant his behaviour started changing towards the complainant. The petitioner neither received the call of the complainant and he was also not interested in talking to her, after which on 22-09-2024 the petitioner came to the house of the complainant along with his Aunt and said that he can’t marry the complainant and went away. The complainant asked many times that why he is doing so to which the petitioner neither replied nor received the call of the complainant. In this way the petitioner on the pretext of marriage established physical relation with the complainant to which the complainant has made a written complaint before the police station reverting to which on 05-10- 2024 an FIR for the offence punishable U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC was registered against the present petitioner under the Crime No.495/2024 and the matter was taken under investigation by the concerned police. After completion of the investigation charge sheet bearing number 448/2024 was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg on 18.12.2024 and the matter is pending before the Additional District 7 Session Judge F.T.C. Durg (C.G.). Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the victim is major girl and working as Staff Nurse and she 4 established relationship with the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, but the said allegation appears to be incorrect and false one as the petitioner himself was ready to marry with the victim/complainant and the date of marriage was fixed for 25-09- 2021, but when it was revealed that the the victim was having relationship with one Shailesh Nirmalkar, then marriage was broken. It has been further pointed out from the statement of Shailesh Nirmalkar and landlord of Shailesh Nirmalkar and the victim, namely, Jagannath Prasad that the victim was living with Shailesh Nirmalkar. Therefore, the contention of the victim/complainant that the consent has been given on misconception of facts has no force. Hence, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not deny the fact that from the statement of Shailesh Nirmalkar it goes to show that he along with the victim was living in live in relationship and there was no legal marriage performed between them. Moreover, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. the victim has denied having any relationship with Shailesh Nirmalkar or marriage with him. Hence, after considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, 5 and the material available in the charge sheet against the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil