1 2026:CGHC:22516-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1349 of 2026 Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar S/o. Amarrath Nirmalkar Aged About 27 Years R/o. Sakin House No. 517/2, Ward No. D.D.S. Raod Tulsi Nagar, P.S.- Civil Lines, Raipur, Tah. And Dist.- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Darri, District- Korba (C.G.) (Prosecution) 2 - Xyz (Complainant) Nil ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Jhawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:09 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 236/2025 Darri Police Station District - korba registered at police station (C.G.) as well as the Chargesheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora (C.G.) and Quash the proceedings of session trial pending before the First Additional Session Judge, Katghora, district- Korba in session case no. 29/2026 in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the victim/complainant lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station on 16.10.2025, on the basis of which FIR No. 236/2025 was registered against the petitioner/accused. In the complaint, it was alleged that about three years prior thereto, the petitioner, namely Ajay Nirmalkar, had promised to marry the complainant and, on such assurance, established physical relations with her. It was further alleged that despite repeated assurances of marriage, the petitioner subsequently refused to marry her and also threatened her. The complainant further alleged that on 13.10.2025, the petitioner again assured her that he would marry her, but on 14.10.2025, he switched off his mobile phone and stopped communicating with her. It was also alleged that the petitioner’s elder brother, namely Vijay Nirmalkar, threatened the complainant and warned her not to initiate any action. On the basis of the said complaint, the matter was 3 investigated. The complainant was medically examined, statements of witnesses were recorded, and other relevant evidence was collected. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the competent Court against the petitioner and co-accused under the relevant provisions of law, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner and, therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is contended that the complainant is a major woman and was acquainted with the petitioner, Ajay Nirmalkar, for a considerable period, and the relationship between them appears to have been consensual and romantic in nature. It is further submitted that from the statements of the complainant, it appears that her grievance primarily arose because the petitioner allegedly interfered in the ceremonies relating to her proposed marriage with another person, and not on account of any alleged sexual act on false promise of marriage. Learned counsel would further submit that the FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and with a vindictive motive to take revenge due to such alleged interference. It is also argued that no prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged are disclosed from the FIR, the medical report does not support the prosecution 4 case, and the charge-sheet itself does not substantiate the allegation of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage, particularly when the complainant herself was intending to marry another person. It is lastly submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, the complainant had expressed willingness to enter into a compromise with the petitioner, and admitted that the compromise proposal was declined by the petitioner’s brother, Vijay Nirmalkar, therefore, on all these grounds, the impugned FIR as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, when read along with the statements of the complainant and the material collected during investigation, clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner, namely Ajay Nirmalkar, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant, in her written complaint, has specifically alleged that the petitioner had established physical relations with her for a prolonged period of about three years on the assurance that he would marry her, but later refused to solemnize the marriage and also threatened her. During investigation, the complainant was medically examined, necessary samples were collected and sent for forensic examination, statements of material witnesses were recorded, and other relevant evidence was collected by the 5 investigating agency. It is further submitted that after registration of the offence, the petitioner absconded and could not be immediately apprehended despite efforts made by the police, which also indicates his conduct. Learned State counsel would contend that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents appended therewith shows that prima facie sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner and the allegations cannot be adjudged to be false or motivated at this preliminary stage. It is further argued that the defence raised by the petitioner that the relationship was consensual, that the complainant intended to marry another person, or that the complaint was lodged due to personal grievance, are all disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined in a petition under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is therefore submitted that since the charge-sheet discloses prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence and the matter requires trial, no case for quashment of FIR or consequential proceedings is made out. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner, Ajay Nirmalkar, prima facie disclose commission of 6 cognizable offence and the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which can be adjudicated only after appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the factual defence set up by the petitioner or test the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents demonstrates that sufficient material has been collected by the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be said that continuance of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet