1 2026:CGHC:19745-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1176 of 2026 Mohsin Khan S/o Maksood Khan, aged about 37 years Caste Muslim, R/o Ekta Nagar Tehsil Chowk, Pendra Road Police Station - Pendra Road, District- Gourela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) Currently Residing at Yadunandan Nagar Tifra Sirgitti Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - A B C (Details of the Prosecutrix have been enclosed in closed envelope) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 . 04 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Shakib Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers:- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “I. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner. II. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 401/2025 dated 06.08.2025 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur under Sections 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as well as Charge-Sheet bearing no. 390/2025 dated 29.09.2025, and all consequent criminal proceedings in respect of Petitioner herein in light of justice and equity. III. To quash the order dated 06/10/2025 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. trial Court in the Criminal Case 30449/2025 in respect of Petitioner herein. IV. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 401/2025, filed on 06.08.2025, is based on a personal relationship lasting over three years between the petitioner and the victim, which ended after the petitioner, already married, allegedly refused to marry her. However, the FIR was filed nearly five months after the last alleged incident, raising doubts about its genuineness. He further submitted that the petitioner’s marital relationship had broken down long before meeting the victim, with divorce proceedings already underway, and any promise of marriage made could not be construed as 3 fraudulent. Moreover, during the relationship, the petitioner financially assisted the victim, including paying her rent, and she was aware of his marital status, disproving claims of concealment. He also submited that the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the personal nature of the relationship and lack of fraudulent intent, shows no criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, the FIR, charge sheet, and subsequent proceedings are an abuse of the legal process and should be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the FIR, registered on 06.08.2025, is based on serious allegations made by the victim regarding a prolonged personal relationship with the petitioner, during which physical relations occurred and a promise of marriage was allegedly made but later refused. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR does not diminish the gravity of the allegations, as the victim may have needed time to come forward due to emotional distress. He also submitted that the petitioner’s claim of already being married and in divorce proceedings is noted, it does not absolve him if a false promise to marry was made with fraudulent intent. He contended that that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and urges that the charge sheet and proceedings be allowed to continue for a thorough investigation to ascertain the truth of the claims. 4 5. Upon considering the submissions of both the petitioner and the State, it is clear that the charge sheet filed in the present case discloses a prima facie case that warrants further investigation and trial. The allegations made by the victim, including the promise of marriage by the petitioner, which was allegedly not fulfilled after establishing a physical relationship, are serious and cannot be dismissed at this stage. While the petitioner claims that he was already married and undergoing divorce proceedings, this does not automatically absolve him of liability if it is proven that the promise to marry was made without any intention of fulfillment, which is a matter for the trial court to determine. 6. The delay in lodging the FIR, though significant, does not automatically invalidate the allegations, as delays in reporting such incidents can often be attributed to emotional or personal reasons. Furthermore, the financial assistance provided by the petitioner to the victim during the relationship, including paying her rent, does not negate the possibility of fraudulent inducement, as it is a matter that requires examination during the course of the trial. Similarly, the fact that the victim was aware of the petitioner’s marital status does not necessarily undermine the allegations of deception if it is established that the promise to marry was made with fraudulent intent. 7. Given the materials presented in the charge sheet, the allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, need to 5 be fully investigated in the course of the trial. The petitioner’s request for quashing the charge sheet is premature, as the proceedings should continue to determine the veracity of the claims and establish whether criminal liability exists. 8. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The petitioner will have the opportunity to contest the charges during the trial process. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra