1 2025:CGHC:10189-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 748 of 2025 Manish Kant Hemraj @ Monu S/o Late Rajnish Hemraj Aged About 38 Years R/o M No. A - 5, Gulmohar Park Colony, Thana Civil Line, Uslapur Station Road, Bilaspur, Present Address Cw. No. D - 8, Cscb Colony, Heerapur, Kotaroad, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer Incharge, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - A W/o B (Details Of Prosecutrix Is Filed In Closed Envelop) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh MIshra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.03 17:46:59 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “(i) set-aside/ quash the impugned First Information Report Dated 10.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 745/2024 under sections 64(2)(m), 296, 115(2), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 registered in Police Station City Kotwali District Raigarh CG, also set aside/quash entire charge-sheet in crime no. 745/2024 dated 20.12.2024 in the interest of justice. (ii) set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Raigarh. (iii) grant any other order(s), deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 10.12.2024, a complaint was made by the complainant/prosecutrix that she was working in the Chhattisgarh Power Transmission Company Limited, Raigarh as Computer Operator since 2022 in daily wages. She has alleged that the petitioner who was also working in the same company as Assistant Grade -III had a love relation with her. It has been further alleged by the prosecutrix that on 15.12.2022, the petitioner took the 3 prosecutrix to his room situated at New CSEB Colony and they were indulged in a physical relationship with mutual consent. Their relationship was going for some days and suddenly, the petitioner started abusing the prosecutrix and his behavior was completely changed. It has been also alleged that the prosecutrix found that the petitioner was having some photographs with some other girls and when the prosecutrix objected the same, the petitioner abused the prosecutrix and advised her not to interfere in his personal life. Thereafter, they had some bitter argument and their relationship was not good. The petitioner had taken some photographs and video of the prosecutrix and forced the prosecutrix to continue in the relationship as well as he had beaten her in front of her children. Thereafter, she was compelled to keep the relationship with the petitioner and informed about the same to her friend. 4. Subsequently, the prosecutrix made a complaint before the police authorities and First Information Report was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 115(2), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) before the Police Station City Kotwali District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5. In the present case, the charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.2024 against the petitioner and he was arrested by the police and thereafter, bail was granted to him by the learned Trial Court. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady having two children and 4 the petitioner is also a married man as well as they were working in the same office and due to some enmity, a delayed FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. He further submits that in the FIR, offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS, but from a plain reading of FIR, there is no allegation of any forceful overt act of rape. It is evident from the FIR as well as from the statement of the prosecutrix that there was physical relation with mutual consent between the petitioner and prosecutrix and she was indulged in a consensual relationship. It has been contended that it is the statement of the complainant that she had informed about the incident to her friend, namely Heena Yadav, whereas in the statement made by Heena Yadav, nothing has been stated by her regarding the relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner. It has been further argued that there is no allegation of any obscene video or photo has been levelled, moreover there is no seizure of any of such material. It has been argued that the conduct of the complainant clearly shows that she is a mature person, capable of understanding the consequences of her acts and she was fully aware of the kind of illicit relationship she was maintaining with a married person. 7. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that FIR has been registered on 10.12.2024 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS and a case has been registered being Session Trial No.06 of 2025 5 before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, who has passed the impugned order on 07.01.2025 for framing of the charge against the petitioner, which is just and proper and in accordance with law. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant Cr.M.P. 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the victim is a married lady, having two children and there is consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix/victim. It further revealed that both the petitioner and the prosecutrix were working in the same office i.e. Chhattisgarh Power Transmission Company Limited, Raigarh and for oblique motive, FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as further considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as also material available on record during the course of investigation, it is apparent that the petitioner had tried to compel the prosecutrix/victim to establish physical relationship with him as he had kept some obscene photographs, which was found in the mobile phone of the petitioner, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such photographs have been found in the mobile phone of the petitioner. 11. Taking into account the overall aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik 6 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable and is hereby dismissed. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu