1 2026:CGHC:3781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 124 of 2026 1 - Sagar Shriwas S/o Shri Ghanaram Shriwas, Aged About 27 Years, (Wrongly Mentioned As Dhanaram Shrivas In The Impugned Order Annexure P/1), R/o Village- Patadhi, Police Station- Urga, Tehsil And Distt.- Korba (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Thana- Urga, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For State/Respondent: Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22/01/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 11.12.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 122/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Korba, District- Korba, C.G. whereby the learned trial Court has framed charge against the applicant under Section 69 of BNSS. 3. As per the prosecution case, a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) alleging that on 10.12.2024 and 28.12.2024, the applicant/accused had SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.01.22 17:06:48 +0530 2 committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Based on the said complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a married woman of 41 years and the applicant is aged about 28 years, and the relationship, if any, developed was consensual and not forceful act. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of 09 months in lodging the FIR, and for such delay, no plausible explanation has been given. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the applicant has developed physical relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The trial Court, while framing the charge, held in the impugned order that there is a prima facie sufficient ground that the accused/applicant had committed the offence under Section 69 of BNS by repeatedly having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on 10.12.2024 and 28.12.2024 at his house in Village Patadi (C.G.), and thus, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the trial Court, I don’t find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision warranting interference by this Court in the charge so framed by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.