1 2026:CGHC:5642-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 329 of 2026 Satyendra Pathak @ Satyendra Pandit S/o Shivnath Pandit Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service R/o Police Line- Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In Charge, Police Station- Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 2. Xyz Nill ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.02 16:23:29 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. To quashed the FIR as well as entire charge-sheet filed by the police of Police Station Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) on dated 27.11.2025 before the learned Special Judge POCSO Act – Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in respect of Crime No. 135/2025 registered at Police Station – Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged offence under Section 64 (2) (m), 332(b) of BNS and under Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Case & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012. Annexure P/2 & P/3. ii. To quashed the entire criminal proceeding in Special Session Trial Case (POCSO) No. 97 of 2025 “State of C.G. vs. Satyendra Pathak” pending before the learned Additional Session Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Annexure P/4), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim lodged a written report on 22.09.2025 alleging that she was a student of B.A. First Year and that in February 2025 she had come to Balrampur for her studies, where she was residing with her maternal uncle Sudhir Tirki, an Assistant Sub- Inspector posted at Police Line, Balrampur. The petitioner, a Constable, was residing in a Government quarter adjacent to the said residence. It 3 is alleged that due to such proximity, the victim became acquainted with the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 22.02.2025, when the victim was alone at home, the petitioner forcibly entered the room and committed rape, and that the incident was disclosed to her uncle and aunt on their return. It is also alleged that about two weeks thereafter, the petitioner again committed sexual assault upon the victim and threatened her with dire consequences. Owing to fear, the victim allegedly discontinued her studies in April 2025, returned to her village, and thereafter lodged a report on 29.09.2025 at Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur. On the basis of the said report, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and subsequently under the POCSO Act were registered. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet dated 27.11.2025 was filed, declaring the petitioner as absconding, and the trial is pending as Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No. 97/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is urged that there is an inordinate delay of about seven months in lodging the FIR, despite the victim allegedly disclosing the incident immediately to her maternal uncle, who is a police officer. It is argued that such delay remains unexplained and renders the prosecution story doubtful. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the maternal uncle of the victim was illegally constructing an additional room behind the Government quarter, obstructing the petitioner’s 4 passage and windows. When the petitioner objected to such construction, the maternal uncle allegedly threatened him with false implication. Complaints in this regard were allegedly submitted by the petitioner to higher police authorities on 15.05.2025 and 10.06.2025. It is also contended that although the alleged incident occurred in a police line area, the victim did not disclose the incident to any person other than her maternal uncle. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that although the alleged incident occurred at Balrampur, the FIR was lodged at Police Station Bagicha after considerable delay, indicating fabrication. It is also contended that there are material contradictions with respect to the date of the incident, inasmuch as the victim and her parents refer to 22.02.2025, whereas the maternal uncle, in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, referred to 16.04.2022, on the basis of which offences under the POCSO Act were added. He further submitted that on the alleged date 16.04.2022, the petitioner was on official duty at Ramanujganj, as reflected in the Rojnamcha Sanha. It is also urged that the victim and her parents have filed affidavits alleging that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by the maternal uncle and later misused. On these grounds, it is contended that no prima facie case is made out and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected 5 by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2183/2025, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations disclose serious and cognizable offences. It is submitted that the investigation has been conducted by a competent officer in accordance with law and that, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 10. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is limited. The Court does not act as a trial court at this stage and cannot assess the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. The power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of law. 11. The legal position has been consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander ((2012) 9 SCC 460), and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 6 6 SCC 73), wherein it has been held that Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the stage of investigation or after filing of the charge- sheet, unless the case falls within exceptional categories warranting such interference. 12. In the present case, the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose specific allegations against the petitioner. The offences were registered initially at Police Station Bagicha and subsequently at Police Station Balrampur due to territorial jurisdiction. Considering that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and was allegedly a minor on the date of the incident, the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act were invoked. The investigation was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and upon completion thereof, material was found against the petitioner. The petitioner has been shown as absconding, and a charge- sheet under Section 335 of the BNS has been filed. 13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner relating to delay in lodging the FIR, alleged contradictions, false implication, and alibi are matters which require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. The fact that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail has already been rejected further indicates that the case does not warrant 7 interference at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the case on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan