1 2026:CGHC:23188-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1392 of 2026 Pratosh Patel S/o Radhuvanshi Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parashdiha Police Out Check Post Wadrafnagar P.S. Basantpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Out Check Post Wadrafnagar Police Station Basantpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.15 18:54:54 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and further may kindly be pleased to quash entire criminal proceedings in Sessions Case no. 35/2026 (Annexure-P/1) for offence punishable U/S 64, 331(4) & 351 (3) of B.N.S. bearing party name State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pratosh Patel pending before learned Sessions Judge Balrampur, place - Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) and the First Information Report dated 06.03.2026/07.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) registered u/s 64, 331(4) & 351(3) of B.N.S. In connection with crime no. 0/2026 & 35/2026 and also final charge sheet dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure-P/3) for offence punishable u/s 64, 331(4) & 351(3) of B.N.S. filed against the present petitioner, in the ends of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at Police Station- Basantpur on the basis of a complaint made by the victim alleging that on 28.02.2026 at about 12:00 midnight, the present petitioner had forcibly committed sexual intercourse upon her without her consent. However, during the course of investigation, a Panchnama of the victim was prepared wherein she is stated to have given a materially different version by stating that she had herself called the petitioner into her room and that the alleged incident had occurred with mutual consent, which Panchnama 3 was also video recorded and forms part of the charge-sheet. It further transpires that the victim was medically examined and no external injuries were found on her person. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 21.03.2026 for offences punishable under Sections 64, 331(4) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., and the petitioner, who had earlier been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3088/2026, is presently on bail and the matter is pending before the learned trial Court for consideration of charge, hence this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is a major lady aged about 45 years, having two daughters and two sons, and her husband is working as a driver in a bus service and was not present at the time of the alleged incident. The relationship between the complainant and the present petitioner was consensual in nature and no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. Further, as per the prosecution case itself, the husband of the complainant informed the police and, upon arrival of police along with villagers, the door of the room was opened and the complainant and petitioner were found together, whereupon a Panchnama was prepared in their presence and the complainant herself stated that she had called the petitioner into her room. The said Panchnama was also video recorded and forms part of the charge-sheet, wherein the complainant further admitted mutual consent, and even the police enquiry regarding 4 the entry of petitioner into the room was answered by her stating that she had herself called him. The complainant and petitioner were on cordial terms being neighbours and the petitioner used to visit her house for assistance in household work due to frequent absence of her husband. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay on 06/07.03.2026, apparently under pressure of the husband and with malafide intent, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. Further, the material collected during investigation, including medical examination showing no injuries and contradictory statements of the complainant, clearly negate the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithvirajan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr. (order dated 20.01.2025) and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand [(2020) 10 SCC 108] has held that consensual relationship between adults, absent any fraudulent intent from inception, does not constitute rape, and therefore continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and are liable to be set aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes this petition and submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant/victim disclose commission of serious offences wherein it is specifically alleged that on 28.02.2026 at about 12:00 midnight, the present petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the complainant/victim without her consent. Further, the FIR was promptly lodged on 5 06/07.03.2026 and the matter was duly investigated in accordance with law. Also, during investigation, the complainant/victim supported the allegation in her initial statement and the matter disclosed cognizable offences warranting trial. The medical examination and other material collected during investigation are matters of evidence to be tested during trial and cannot be a ground for premature appreciation at this stage. Any alleged contradictions or variations in the statement of the complainant/victim, including contents of Panchnama, are matters for cross-examination before the trial Court and cannot be treated as conclusive at this stage. Further, the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation for offences punishable under Sections 64, 331(4) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., and there exists sufficient material for framing of charge. The petitioner having already been enlarged on bail, the present submissions are confined to the existence of prima facie case, and it is settled law that at the stage of charge/framing or quashing, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and therefore the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the State and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value, disclose commission of 6 cognizable offences and constitute a prima facie case requiring adjudication during trial. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding consensual relationship and alleged contradictions in the statement of the victim/complainant pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings of the present nature and are matters to be tested by way of evidence before the learned trial Court. The contents of the charge-sheet, including the statement of the victim/complainant and other material collected during investigation, cannot be discarded at this stage so as to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet