1 2026:CGHC:7264-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 431 of 2026 Amod Ram Bhagat S/o Sukhram Bhagat Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bumtel, Tahsil - Manora, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh (Age Is Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Jashpur, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2. Xyz (Prosecutrix/ Complainant) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, 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 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.10 16:51:38 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 12.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 239 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC against the petitioner. III. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Final Report No. 226 of 2025 filed by Police Station, Jashpur, District Jashpur before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner. IV. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) and entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jashpur, District Jashpur against the petitioner. V. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government servant working as a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Armed Force since the year 2018 and has been discharging his official duties with sincerity, dedication and integrity. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 lodged a written report on 12.09.2025 at Police Station Jashpur alleging that in the year 2021, while she was pursuing her studies and undergoing computer training, she came into contact with the petitioner and both of them developed acquaintance which subsequently turned into a relationship. It is alleged that on 02.09.2021, the petitioner visited the rented accommodation of respondent No. 2 and established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that such physical relationship continued on several occasions till 10.08.2022, as a result of which respondent No. 2 became pregnant. 5. It is further alleged that on 22.04.2023, the petitioner executed an agreement on stamp paper stating that he would marry respondent No.2 in March, 2024 and would maintain her and the child. It is further alleged that during her pregnancy, respondent No. 2 resided with the petitioner for approximately two months but later returned to her parental house alleging improper treatment by the petitioner’s family. Thereafter, she delivered a male child on 09.07.2023. It is alleged that after the birth of the child, the petitioner avoided respondent No. 2 and refused to maintain her and the child, which resulted in lodging of the report. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 239/2025 has been registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by the competent 4 Court. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur and the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions, which has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. It is contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during investigation are accepted in their entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute the alleged offence and, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the FIR clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was consensual and developed over a considerable period of time. It is argued that the complainant is a major and educated woman, fully capable of understanding the consequences of her actions. It is further contended that there is no allegation of force, coercion or threat. It is submitted that mere failure to marry does not attract the offence of rape and there is no material to suggest that from the inception the petitioner never intended to marry respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about four years from the commencement of the relationship. It is contended that such delay creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Verma vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 5 AIR 2007 SCW 5532 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 335. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR and material collected during investigation clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted that the allegations indicate that the physical relationship was established on assurance of marriage and that the petitioner subsequently refused to fulfil such promise despite execution of a written agreement and birth of a child. It is further submitted that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 11. The law relating to exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial while exercising such jurisdiction. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings may be quashed. However, it has been consistently held that where the allegations disclose prima facie commission of an offence, the Court should refrain from interfering. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. 6 Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 has reiterated that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations disclose commission of an offence and not whether the allegations are likely to be proved during trial. 14. The jurisprudence relating to consent obtained on the promise of marriage has been elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions. In Uday vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, it has been held that if a promise to marry is made in good faith but subsequently cannot be fulfilled due to circumstances, it would not amount to rape. However, if the promise is false from inception and is made only to obtain consent for sexual relations, it may fall within the ambit of rape. 15. In Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court must examine whether the accused had mala fide intention and made a false promise at the inception itself. 16. In the present case, the FIR and material collected during investigation prima facie indicate that the petitioner developed a relationship with the complainant, established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage and subsequently executed a written agreement assuring marriage and responsibility towards the complainant and the child. It is further alleged that despite such assurance, the petitioner neither married the complainant nor maintained her and the child. 7 17. The execution of a written agreement assuring marriage and responsibility, coupled with continuation of relationship and subsequent refusal to honour such assurance, prima facie raises questions regarding the intention of the petitioner, which can only be examined during trial upon appreciation of evidence. 18. The contention of the petitioner that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR has been lodged after delay involves factual adjudication. The effect of delay, conduct of parties, intention of the petitioner and voluntariness of consent are matters requiring evidence and cross-examination, which cannot be evaluated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. At this stage, this Court cannot conclusively determine whether the consent of the complainant was voluntary or was obtained under misconception of fact. The material available on record discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. 20. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not advance his case at this stage as they reiterate that the issue relating to intention of the accused at the inception is a matter of trial. 21. Upon careful consideration of the FIR, charge-sheet and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence. The defences raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Thus, no case is made out to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings are 8 manifestly attended with mala fide or constitute abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court. 22. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial Court while deciding the case on merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan