1 2026:CGHC:19746-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1195 of 2026 ABC (Details are enclosed in a envelope) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - XYZ (Details are enclosed in envelope) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.04.2026 1 Heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy 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:- “A. To call for the records/case diary of the instant case. B. That that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 29/10/2025 bearing crime no. 530/2025 Registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chargesheet (ANNEXURE P- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 1) and entire consequential proceedings initiated/ arising out of the said crime number wherein the charge-sheet has also been filed for alleged offence under section 74, 351(3) OF BNS & Section 8 of POCSO Act and the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on 13.01.2026 registering criminal case bearing SCC POCSO No. 03/2026 (ANNEXURE P-2), in the interest of Justice. C. Any Other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/ Complainant has given a written complaint on 29.10.2025 before the Police Authorities stating that he is the resident of Bhilai and he has one son aged about 17 years (Now Major) and one daughter aged about 16 years. Both are studying at Rungta Public School Kohka Bhilai in Class 12 and 10 respectively. It is further stated in the complaint that in the same school daughter of the petitioner was studying in class 11th and she was closely acquainted with the son of the complainant namely Saket Sharma. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has objected to this friendship and asked her daughter to don't keep any contact with the son of the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner contacted complainant's wife and asked for location of their house, so that he can personally come and meet complainant & his wife in order to talk about their children and requesting them to persuade his son to break friendship from petitioner's daughter and not to follow her. It is alleged that the wife of complainant has sent location and 3 on 11.08.2025 at about 8:00 PM in the evening the petitioner along with his mother and daughter came to house of complainant, upon which, complainant asked his wife to bring some snack, both the families talked and when the petitioner along with his family was about to leave, at that point of time the petitioner herein requested the complainant to use wash room and went inside her daughter (Victim) room and came outside after 10 minutes and thereafter left complainant's house. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant saw some change in her daughter’s behavior, when her mother continuously persuaded her as to what had happened, she on 28.10.2025 stated that on 11.08.2025 when the petitioner along with his family came their house on that day petitioner with an excuse to use the wash room entered into her room and outraged her modesty by acting inappropriately and also touched her body parts. Hearing this the instant complaint was made by respondent no. 2 upon which the present crime has been registered against the present petitioner. It is worthy to mention that petitioner has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by the concerned jurisdictional Court in the present crime vide its order dated 07.11.2025. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for alleged offence under Section 74, 351(3) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the learned trial Court has taken cognizanze against the petitioner on 13.01.2026 registering Criminal Case bearing SCC POCSO No. 03/206. Hence, this 4 petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, baseless, and a result of an afterthought, intended solely to take revenge against the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner had previously filed an FIR against the complainant’s son, alleging rape and theft of gold on 19.08.2025. After the complainant’s son was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on 12.09.2025, the complainant allegedly lodged the present FIR against the petitioner on 29.10.2025 as a retaliatory action. He further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are frivolous and without merit, and that the story presented by the complainant is fabricated to pressure the petitioner and his daughter into compromising in the case involving the complainant’s son. He further submitted that the petitioner, who is employed as a Senior Technical Assistant in Chhattisgarh Nagarik Apurti Nigam, had initially attempted to resolve the situation amicably by encouraging the complainant and his son to focus on the future. After learning that his daughter had been coerced into giving her grandmother's gold to the complainant’s son, the petitioner filed a complaint against him. He also highlighted that the complainant, being an advocate by profession, may be using this FIR as a tactic to influence the petitioner into compromising the ongoing case. Lastly, the counsel noted that the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with its timing, suggests that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive. 5 Therefore, he prays for the quashing of the impugned FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings. 5 Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant contains serious allegations against the petitioner, including claims of inappropriate conduct towards his daughter, which, if substantiated, could lead to criminal liability. The timing of the FIR and the delay in lodging it do not automatically discredit the allegations, as the complainant’s daughter only disclosed the incident after being persistently questioned. The fact that the petitioner had previously filed an FIR against the complainant’s son does not negate the possibility of the present allegations being true. Furthermore, the issues regarding threats from the complainant’s son are separate matters being addressed through other legal avenues and should not influence the current case. 6 As the allegations and counter allegations have been levelled by the petitioner and the complainant against each other, we do not find any good ground for interference at this stage, accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all the objections at an appropriate stage before the trial Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra