1 2026:CGHC:5641-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 327 of 2026 1. Banwari Lal Sarthi S/o Late Shri Jailal Sarthi Aged About 40 Years R/o Dhodhatarai Police Station Urga, District Korba, C.G. 2. Smt. Santoshi Bai Sarthi W/o Banwari Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhodhatarai Police Station Urga, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Urga, District Korba, C.G. 2. Xyz Nill ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 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. Mirza Kaisher Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.02 17:31:43 +0530 2 “I. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioners. II. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 275 of 2025 registered on 26.06.2025 at Police Station Urga District Korba (C.G.) filed under Section 376(2)(n), 34 of Indian Penal Code. III. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge-sheet filed on 16.07.2025 before Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba District Korba under Section 376(2)(n), 34 of Indian Penal Code. IV. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 104 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned District and Additional Session Judge FTC Korba, District Korba (C.G.). V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of a report / written complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 at Police Station Urga, a criminal case bearing Crime No. 275/2025 was registered against the present petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 34 of the IPC. It is alleged therein that petitioner No. 1 committed repeated sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2 by use of force and that such acts were committed pursuant to a conspiracy 3 involving his wife, petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel contends that the said allegations are false, exaggerated, and not supported by any cogent or reliable material. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the prosecution case itself, respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 were in a long-standing relationship, from which a female child was born. The birth certificate issued by the competent authority on 03.09.2022 records respondent No. 2 as the mother and petitioner No. 1 as the father of the child. According to learned counsel, the said circumstance establishes that the relationship was continuous and consensual, thereby negating the allegation of repeated forcible sexual assault. It is further submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 26.06.2025 and were subsequently released on bail by the competent Courts. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Korba, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it is pending as Sessions Trial No. 104/2025 before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba. Charges were framed on 11.12.2025, and the petitioners have cooperated throughout the proceedings. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC are not made out. He also contended that the material on record indicates consent on the part of respondent No. 2 and voluntary 4 participation in the relationship. It is also argued that the FIR alleges incidents spanning from 26.11.2020 to 26.06.2025, yet no explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay in lodging the report, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case and suggests that the complaint is an afterthought. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation of conspiracy and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC against petitioner No. 2 is vague and mechanical, as no specific overt act or role has been attributed to her. Mere marital relationship with petitioner No. 1, in the absence of substantive material, cannot attract criminal liability. It is also submitted that no contemporaneous medical or forensic examination supporting the allegation of force was conducted. The medical report does not reveal any injury, sign of violence, or physical indication of forcible sexual intercourse. The hymen was found intact, and no evidence of resistance or trauma was noted. It is further argued that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were residing together in a rented accommodation, representing themselves as husband and wife, and respondent No. 2 was fully aware that petitioner No. 1 was a married man, yet continued the relationship voluntarily. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances—namely, the long-term relationship, birth of a child, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical corroboration, and lack of material indicating force 5 or coercion—demonstrates that the criminal proceedings are actuated by mala fide intent. It is contended that continuation of Sessions Trial No. 104/2025 would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has been conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that sufficient material was collected during investigation, and upon satisfaction that a prima facie case exists, the charge-sheet has been duly filed before the learned trial Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the FIR, charge-sheet, and the material placed on record. 10. The scope and ambit of the power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional cases where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence. At this stage, the Court is not required to examine the sufficiency or reliability of evidence, nor to embark upon a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact. 6 11. In the present case, a careful perusal of the FIR and the charge- sheet reveals specific and categorical allegations against petitioner No.1 that he committed sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2 against her will and without her consent. The FIR further contains allegations that petitioner No. 2 actively facilitated the commission of the offence by inducement and assurance, thereby attracting the application of Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations are not vague or omnibus in nature but disclose a sequence of events which, if proved, would constitute offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 34 of the IPC. 12. The contention of the petitioners that the relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was consensual and that a child was born out of such relationship cannot be accepted at this stage. The question whether consent was free, voluntary, or vitiated by coercion, inducement, or abuse of position is a matter of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal prosecution. Merely because the parties were in a relationship for a period of time or that a child was born does not, by itself, rule out the commission of sexual assault, particularly when allegations of force and exploitation have been made. 13. The submission regarding delay in lodging the FIR also does not merit acceptance at this stage. It is well recognised that in cases involving allegations of sexual offences, delay in reporting the crime cannot be equated with falsity of the prosecution case. The reasons for 7 delay, including fear, social stigma, emotional trauma, or pressure, are matters to be explained during trial. Whether the explanation offered is satisfactory or not is a question to be decided on appreciation of evidence and cannot be a ground for quashing at the threshold. 14. The argument that the medical examination does not corroborate the allegations of sexual assault is also premature. Absence of external injuries or an intact hymen does not conclusively negate the allegation of rape, especially in cases involving repeated sexual assault over a period of time. Medical evidence is only corroborative in nature and cannot override the direct testimony of the victim, if otherwise found credible. The evidentiary value of the medical report can be assessed only during trial. 15. With regard to the role attributed to petitioner No. 2, this Court finds that the FIR contains allegations that she was aware of and facilitated the acts of petitioner No. 1 by inducement and assurance. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter of trial. At the stage of quashing, it would be impermissible for this Court to examine the correctness or sufficiency of such allegations. 16. The contention that the petitioners were residing together and projecting themselves as husband and wife, and that respondent No. 2 was aware of the marital status of petitioner No.1, also raises disputed questions of fact. These aspects require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. 8 17. On an overall consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication through a full-fledged trial. The grounds raised by the petitioners pertain to defence pleas which may be available to them during trial but do not warrant interference at this stage. 18. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the offence alleged is of a serious nature. Courts must exercise restraint in quashing proceedings relating to offences against the body, particularly those involving allegations of sexual assault, unless the case falls within the narrow parameters laid down for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 19. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance demonstrating that the prosecution is manifestly mala fide or that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law, this Court finds no justification to invoke its inherent powers. 20. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner while deciding the case on its own merits, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan