1 2026:CGHC:7486-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 439 of 2026 Sachin Gupta S/o Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhanora, Ward No. 6, Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Manipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ (Complainant) Nill ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate and Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.11 18:06:13 +0530 2 respondent No.1 / State as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “i. Quash the impugned FIR dated 05.12.2025 bearing Crime No. 326/2025 registered at Police Station Manipur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence under Section 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3), 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. ii. Quash the impugned Final Report bearing No.- 05/2026 dated 19.01.2026, filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)under section 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3), 115(2) of B.N.S. iii. Quash the impugned Order of taking cognizance dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) iv. Quash the impugned proceeding undercriminal Case No.-147/2026 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) V. Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 05.12.2025, the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Manipur, District Sarguja (C.G.), alleging that on 05.05.2024 the accused Sachin took her to a place near Bilaspur Chowk, Ambikapur, where he forcibly made her consume alcohol and, taking advantage of her 3 intoxicated condition, committed rape upon her. On regaining consciousness the next morning, the accused assured her of marriage and threatened to die if she refused, whereafter she gradually developed emotional attachment with him. Subsequently the accused repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation at his residence, at her rented accommodation while she was employed at HDFC Bank, Ambikapur, and at various hotels; that as a result of continued physical relations she became pregnant and the accused caused her abortion by administering medicines, while repeatedly promising marriage and emotionally blackmailing her. On 29.10.2025 the accused, along with co- accused Ayush Gupta, dragged, abused, assaulted and threatened her with death, and on 30.10.2025 the accused’s relatives, namely Sunil Gupta, Sumer Gupta and Rishabh Gupta, and thereafter his father Sanjeev Gupta and uncle Sunil Gupta, also extended threats to kill her. Despite repeated sexual relations on several occasions, the accused ultimately refused to marry her. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 326/2025 was registered on 05.12.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3) and 115(2) of the BNS, 2023. Upon completion of investigation, Final Report No. 05/2026 dated 19.01.2026 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who took cognizance on 20.01.2026. Hence this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR 4 dated 05.12.2025, the Final Report dated 19.01.2026 and the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2026 are bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and thus liable to be set aside/quashed, inasmuch as the victim lodged the report belatedly on 05.12.2025 despite the fact that much prior thereto, on 07.11.2025 and again on 02.12.2025, the petitioner himself had made written complaints before Police Station Balrampur, upon which proceedings under Section 174 BNSS were initiated, clearly indicating a counterblast and an afterthought. Further, the material on record would further demonstrate that the victim had earlier received amounts of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 65,000/-, Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- from the petitioner by extending serious threats, and only when the petitioner refused to succumb to such monetary demands, a false, concocted and fabricated report was lodged against him. Even as per the FIR, at the first alleged incident no assurance or promise of marriage was given by the petitioner, and therefore the very foundation of the allegation of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage is absent. Furthermore, the victim is a major, educated and working lady, fully aware of the nature and consequences of her acts, and a bare reading of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and her own conduct would prima facie reveal that she was a willing and consenting party to the relationship, thereby not attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is well settled in law that due weightage must be given to the age, educational qualification, social background 5 and overall conduct of the victim to determine whether her consent was obtained under misconception of fact, and in this regard the law has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191, Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (2014) 5 SCC 678, Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055), as also in Shaju Thomas v. Sub Inspector of Police (2019 SCC OnLine Ker 23039) and Narain Trivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2009 SCC OnLine All 30), which principles have been followed by this Court in Aniruddha Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Cr.M.P. No. 1587/2022 decided on 13.02.2025. It is equally settled that criminal proceedings maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and attended with mala fide can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, as held in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315), and in the present case the allegations in the FIR and the final report are so absurd, inherently improbable and actuated by vengeance and personal gain that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the impugned FIR dated 05.12.2025, the Final Report dated 19.01.2026 and the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2026 have been passed 6 strictly in accordance with law and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, inasmuch as the allegations made by the victim disclose commission of cognizable and serious offences involving repeated sexual exploitation, criminal intimidation and assault, which were duly investigated by the police The FIR clearly narrates that the accused initially subjected the victim to sexual intercourse by forcibly intoxicating her and thereafter continued to exploit her on false assurances of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy and forced abortion, and ultimately refused to marry her, which prima facie attracts the ingredients of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained by the victim on account of emotional trauma, repeated assurances, threats and pressure exerted by the accused and his family members, and mere prior complaints allegedly made by the petitioner do not render the prosecution case doubtful at this stage. The question whether the victim was a consenting party or whether her consent was vitiated by misconception of fact is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS and requires appreciation of evidence during trial. The allegations regarding monetary transactions and threats raised by the petitioner are matters of defence, which cannot be looked into at the stage of quashing. At the stage of cognizance and framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made 7 out, and meticulous examination of evidence or adjudication on disputed facts is impermissible. Further, in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315), the inherent jurisdiction ought to be exercised sparingly, and since the FIR and charge-sheet disclose commission of offences and do not fall within the category of rare cases warranting interference, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the prosecutrix is a victim of continuous sexual exploitation and intimidation at the hands of the petitioner, who initially raped her by intoxicating her and thereafter repeatedly subjected her to physical relations on the false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy and forced abortion, and finally refused to marry her. Further, the FIR discloses clear and specific allegations of deceit, coercion and threats, which have been duly substantiated during investigation, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains to disputed questions of fact and alleged consent, which can only be adjudicated during trial and that at this stage, no case for quashing is made out, therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8 8. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the fnal report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled by the victim disclose the commission of cognizable offences and raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out, and a meticulous appreciation of evidence or examination of the defence of the petitioner is impermissible. In view of the settled principles of law governing the limited scope of interference at the stage of quashing, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, Final Report or the order taking cognizance. 9. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet