1 2026:CGHC:5880-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 342 of 2026 Aishwarya Singh Kanwar S/o Karam Singh Kanwar Aged About 28 Years R/o - R.H. 10, Pwd Basti, P.S.- Rampur, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Tarbahar District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Dharna Kanwar D/o Samaru Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o - Ward No. 03, Dammani Colony, Gobra Nawapara, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advoate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.02.03 14:56:22 +0530 2 State/respondent No.1 and Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “A) By quashing the FIR no. 105/2025 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) as well as Charge-sheet filed on 12.06.2025 under Section 376(2) (n) of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). B) By quashing of Criminal proceeding and cognizance taken on- 25/7/2025 and charges framed against the petitioner by the learned Add. Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.), dated 12.09.2025 in Sessions Case no. 167/2025, and may kindly set free the petitioner from the aforesaid allegation, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim herself was a consenting party and had voluntarily accompanied the present petitioner. It is an admitted position that the victim stayed with the petitioner at a hotel of her own free will, which completely demolishes the allegation of any offence being committed against her consent. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the material available on record in its proper perspective, inasmuch as there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The 3 prosecution case rests solely on conjectures and assumptions without any substantive corroboration. 4. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the entire case arises out of a misunderstanding between the parties and that none of the essential ingredients required to constitute the alleged offences are made out. Even if the prosecution version is accepted at its face value, no offence as alleged in the FIR is attracted. It is further submitted that the victim and the petitioner were in a longstanding consensual relationship. Subsequently, due to refusal of marriage by the parents of the petitioner, the circumstances changed and the present complaint came to be lodged. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2025, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P-2. 5. Learned counsel further submits that both the victim and the petitioner belong to the same caste and after registration of the FIR, they have amicably settled their dispute and solemnized their marriage at Arya Samaj, Raipur (C.G.) on 21.10.2025. The marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj along with photographs has been filed collectively as Annexure P-3. It is also submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not support the prosecution story, as there were no signs of any forceful 4 sexual act found on her body, thereby falsifying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel submits that from the entire charge-sheet, it is evident that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner from any angle whatsoever. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant fairly admits the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and in view of the aforesaid admission, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a written compromise before the concerned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall verify the compromise in accordance with law and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 9. The certified copy of all annexures, shall be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu