1 2026:CGHC:7732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 456 of 2026 Hermon Ekka S/o Simon Ekka Aged About 61 Years Occupation- Government Service, Resident Of House No. 06, Kanha Homes, Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 02, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.02.12 17:04:18 +0530 2 “(A) Kindly may quash criminal proceeding of criminal Sessions Case No. 293/2025 U/s 376(2)(n), 323, 294 IPC pending before learned upper session Judge F.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.) (B) Kindly may quash the First Information report No. 0543/2025 U/s 376(2)(n), 323, 294 IPC dated 07.08.2025 in the interest of justice.” 3. Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS on 11.08.2025 clearly indicates that she was in telephonic contact with the petitioner for about 8–10 months and had fallen in love with him. The material further reveals that the relationship continued for a considerable period. The medical history given by the victim also reflects that the relationship was consensual. Thus, the record itself suggests that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and mutual in nature. 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that as per the FIR itself, the complainant had worked as a maid in the petitioner’s house in the year 2023, where he was residing along with his family. Therefore, she was fully aware from the very inception that the petitioner was a married person. In such circumstances, there could not have been any false promise of marriage so as to vitiate her consent. When a woman 3 knowingly enters into a relationship despite being aware of the subsisting marriage of the man, the allegation of a subsequent refusal to marry cannot convert a consensual relationship into an offence of rape. 5. Mr. Verma places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been held that a consensual relationship which later turns sour cannot be given the colour of rape in the absence of any deception from the inception. Further reliance is placed upon Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that to constitute rape on the ground of false promise of marriage, the promise must have been false from the very beginning and the consent must have been obtained on the basis of such misconception of fact. Similarly, in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, it has been held that when the parties are in a consensual relationship and the victim is aware of the circumstances, Section 376 IPC is not attracted merely because the marriage did not take place. Reference may also be made to Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, wherein it has been observed that a consensual relationship between adults which subsequently fails does not amount to rape in absence of fraudulent intent from inception. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law and the admitted facts emerging from the FIR and the statement under Section 183 4 BNSS, the essential ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC are not satisfied. The continuation of Criminal Sessions Case No. 293/2025 against the petitioner would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Court for quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Shrama, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that from the bare perusal of the FIR, the statement of the victim, and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 and 294 of the IPC is clearly made out against the accused. He submits that the victim has categorically alleged that the accused induced her by promising marriage, assured her that he would take care of her and her children, and on that pretext established physical relations with her against her will initially and thereafter continued to do so repeatedly on the assurance of marriage. The statement of the victim consistently discloses that the consent, if any, was obtained under a misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage. 8. Mr. Sharma further submits that the victim is a widow with three minor children and was in a vulnerable condition after the death of her husband in the year 2023. Taking advantage of her situation, the accused allegedly exploited her emotionally and physically. It is contended that whether the consent was voluntary or obtained on false 5 promise is a matter of evidence, which can only be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings for quashment under inherent jurisdiction. It is also submitted that during investigation, the statement of the victim has been recorded, her medical examination has been conducted at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, and the spot map has been prepared. Despite repeated efforts, the accused remained absconding and an absconding panchnama has been prepared. Information regarding his movable and immovable properties has also been collected. On finding sufficient material against the accused, Charge- sheet No. 585/2025 dated 02.10.2025 has been filed before the competent court. Thus, there exists sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial. 9. It is contended by Mr. Sharma that at this stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a mini-trial. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be tested during trial. Therefore, the petition seeking quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 11. From perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the statement of the victim, it transpires that the victim has categorically alleged that the petitioner induced her to enter into a physical relationship on the assurance and promise that he would marry her and take care of her as 6 well as her children. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the allegations contained in the FIR and the material gathered during investigation, prima facie disclose that the physical relationship allegedly continued on the basis of such assurance. The victim has further alleged that when she insisted upon marriage, the petitioner abused and assaulted her and thereafter refused to solemnize the marriage. These allegations, at this stage, cannot be said to be inherently absurd or improbable. 12. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashment of FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of an offence, and not whether the allegations are likely to be proved at trial. The Court cannot appreciate evidence, evaluate contradictions, or determine the truthfulness of rival versions. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the power of quashing must be exercised sparingly and that the Court should not embark upon a mini-trial at the stage of considering a petition for quashment. 13. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for consent to be vitiated on the ground of misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry, it must be established that the promise was false from the very inception and that the accused never intended to marry. Whether such 7 intention existed from the inception is essentially a matter of evidence and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. 14. Similarly, in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the determination whether the consent was voluntary or was obtained on false promise depends upon the specific facts and circumstances and requires appreciation of evidence during trial. 15. In the present case, the victim has alleged that the petitioner, taking advantage of her vulnerable condition as a widow with minor children, assured her of marriage and continued to maintain physical relations on that pretext. The investigation has culminated in filing of charge-sheet after recording statements, conducting medical examination at CIMS Hospital, and preparing the spot map. The defence of the petitioner that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was aware of his marital status are matters which can be tested only upon recording of evidence during trial. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent. 16. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the trial Court. Accordingly, no case for exercise of inherent powers for quashment of the FIR or consequential proceedings is made out. 8 17. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear 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 in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu