1 2026:CGHC:2110-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 116 of 2026 Akash Sharma S/o Manishankar Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o 102, Ward No. 9, Ram Nagar, Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - XYZ (Complainant) Nil ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 17:54:24 +0530 2 “i. Quash the impugned FIR dated 05.08.2025 bearing Crime No. 418/2025 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Section 64, 64(2)(m), 69 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. ii. Quash the impugned Final Report bearing No.- 555/2025 dated 15.12.2025, filed before learned special judge (atrocity), Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) under section 64, 64(2)(m), 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) V of ST/SC Act. iii. Quash the impugned Order of taking cognizance dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned special judge (atrocity), Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). iv. Quash the impugned order of framing of charges passed by learned special judge (atrocity), Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), under section 64, 64(2)(n) of B.N.S. in option Section 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) V of ST/SC Act on 19.12.2025 against the petitioner. v. Quash the impugned proceeding under Special Session Case No.-24/2025 pending before learned special judge (atrocity), Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) vi. Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose 3 the commission of any offence under Sections 64, 64(2)(n)/69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 or under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that the victim is a major, married woman having two children and admittedly there has been no dissolution of marriage between her and her husband at any point of time. In such circumstances, the allegation of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage is inherently improbable and legally unsustainable. 4. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR itself would reveal that at the first instance there was no assurance or promise of marriage given by the petitioner. The relationship, as alleged, was consensual in nature and continued over a period of time with the full knowledge and volition of the victim. Mere refusal or inability to marry at a later stage cannot ipso facto be construed as a false promise made at the inception so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. 5. Learned counsel submits that the materials collected during investigation, as reflected in the Final Report, do not demonstrate any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner from the very beginning. On the contrary, the conduct of the victim clearly indicates that she was a willing and consenting party, fully conscious of the consequences of such relationship. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of 4 the process of law. It is further contended that the subsequent addition of Section 3(2)(v) of the ST/SC Act during investigation is wholly arbitrary and malafide, based merely on overwriting in the complaint and without any foundational facts to attract the said provision. The said addition has been made only with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned FIR is the outcome of a blatant attempt at extortion. Much prior to registration of the FIR, the petitioner had lodged written complaints dated 01.08.2025 and 03.08.2025 before the competent authorities regarding illegal demand of Rs.25,00,000/- by the victim and her husband for settlement of the dispute. When the petitioner declined to succumb to such illegal demand, the present false and concocted case has been instituted. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, wherein it has been categorically held that a consensual relationship which later turns sour or where parties drift apart cannot be treated as a false promise of marriage so as to invoke the criminal machinery of the State. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled position of law, learned counsel submits that the impugned FIR dated 05.08.2025, the Final Report, the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2025 and the order framing charges dated 19.12.2025 deserve to be 5 quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court, as continuation of the proceedings would result in manifest injustice and abuse of the process of law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that a bare reading of the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the materials collected in the Final Report clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(n)/69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim has specifically alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on repeated occasions on the assurance of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her, thereby vitiating her consent. 9. Learned State counsel further submits that at the stage of quashing or discharge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity of the allegations. If the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It is further contended that the mere fact that the victim is a married woman does not, by itself, rule out the offence of sexual 6 intercourse on false promise of marriage. What is relevant is whether the consent was obtained on a misconception of fact arising out of false assurances made by the accused, which is a matter to be established during trial on the basis of evidence. 10. Learned State counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner, as alleged, shows that he exploited the vulnerability of the victim and continued to maintain physical relations with her for a considerable period before refusing to marry her. Such conduct, if proved, would clearly attract the penal provisions invoked in the present case. With regard to the addition of Section 3(2)(v) of the ST/SC Act, learned State counsel submits that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the offence has been committed against her on that ground. The question as to whether the said offence is made out is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this premature stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s allegation of extortion and malafides is a matter of defence and the same cannot be examined or relied upon at this stage. Such disputed questions of fact require evidence and cross-examination and can only be decided during trial. 11. Learned State counsel therefore submits that the FIR, the Final Report, the order of taking cognizance and the order of framing of charges have been passed strictly in accordance with law, after due application of mind by the learned Special Judge. No 7 perversity or illegality is made out so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 13. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the victim is a major, married woman having two minor children and admittedly her marriage with her husband was subsisting during the entire period of the alleged incidents. It is alleged that she came in contact with the accused Akash Sharma in February, 2025 and despite being fully conscious of her marital status, voluntarily maintained telephonic contact with him for a considerable period. 14. It further emerges that the victim herself approached the accused, disclosed her marital status, and despite the same, continued conversations with him, which gradually developed into a consensual relationship. The allegations indicate repeated meetings between the parties at different places over a span of nearly four months, during which physical relations were established on several occasions. 15. The FIR further reflects that the victim did not disclose the alleged relationship or incidents either to her husband or to any family member for a substantial period and continued to meet the accused even after alleged apprehension of being noticed by 8 relatives. The dispute surfaced only after the matter came to the knowledge of her husband and the accused allegedly refused to marry her. 16. It is also evident from the contents of the FIR that the relationship between the parties was prolonged, voluntary and continued with the active participation of the victim, who was aware of all consequences. The allegations primarily revolve around refusal to marry at a later stage, after the relationship turned sour. 17. The scope and ambit of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is no longer res integra. It is settled law that such extraordinary power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where the Court is convinced that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to a patent abuse of the process of law or where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. At the stage of quashing, the Court is not expected to embark upon a roving or meticulous enquiry into disputed questions of fact or appreciate the evidence as would be done at the stage of trial. 18. In the present case, a careful scrutiny of the FIR, read as a whole, prima facie discloses specific and detailed allegations against the petitioner regarding repeated acts of establishing physical relations with the victim on the assurance of marriage, followed by 9 refusal to marry. The FIR contains elaborate assertions regarding inducement, continued physical intimacy and the alleged deception practised by the petitioner, which, if ultimately proved, would attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. 19. Though much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the victim is a married woman having two children, the same by itself cannot be a determinative factor at this stage to hold that no offence is made out. The question as to whether the consent of the victim was free and voluntary or was obtained on a misconception of fact arising out of alleged false promises is essentially a matter of appreciation of evidence, which can be conclusively determined only during trial after recording evidence of the parties. 20. The contention that the relationship was wholly consensual and that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS. Similarly, the plea of extortion, malafides and ulterior motive attributed to the victim and her husband constitute matters of defence, which the petitioner would be at liberty to raise and substantiate before the trial court in accordance with law. 21. So far as the challenge to the addition of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 10 Act is concerned, the victim has specifically asserted her caste status and the commission of offence against her. Whether the offence has been committed “on the ground that” the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste and whether the statutory ingredients of the said provision are ultimately established are mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be pre-empted or conclusively adjudicated at this nascent stage. 22. This Court does not find any perversity, patent illegality or non- application of mind in the orders of taking cognizance dated 15.12.2025 and framing of charges dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge. The learned court below has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law after considering the material collected during investigation and has rightly found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. 23. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra) is misplaced at this stage, as each case must be decided on its own facts. The present case involves detailed factual assertions which require evidentiary evaluation and do not warrant interference at the threshold. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition does not satisfy the parameters laid down for exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to 11 stifling a legitimate prosecution and prematurely evaluating factual issues which are within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. 25. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court, which shall proceed independently and decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it, in accordance with law. 26. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu