1 2026:CGHC:24207-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1480 of 2026 Atul Parkar S/o Vijay Kumar Parkar Aged About 29 Years R/o Villge Akaltari, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General of Police Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - X Y Z Nil ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrasen Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17 .0 6 .202 6 1 Heard Mr. Chandrasen Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- “(1) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (2) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 02/2026 registered on dated 04.05.2026 at police station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in offence under section 69 of B.N.S. in respect of the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant / respondent No.5 has made complaint to the concerned police station alleging inter-alia that in between 17.05.2021 to 01.05.2026, the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her at several time on the pretext of marriage, thereafter, the petitioner has refused to marry with her. Based upon such complaint, the police has registered FIR No. 02/2026 for the offence under Section 69 of BNS against the petitioner and till date investigation has not been completed and charge-sheet has not been filed. Hence, this petition. 3 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. It is contended that the complainant is a major and married woman, fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. The FIR itself discloses that the parties were acquainted with each other for a considerable period and that the alleged relationship continued over several years. Learned counsel submits that the allegations indicate a consensual relationship between two adults and that there is no material in the FIR to demonstrate that the consent of the complainant was obtained by any fraudulent inducement existing from the very inception of the relationship. It is argued that a subsequent refusal or inability to marry, by itself, does not automatically establish that the promise of marriage was false when allegedly made. It is further submitted that the question whether any promise was made, whether such promise was genuine or deceptive, and whether the complainant acted upon such promise are all matters requiring strict proof during investigation and trial. At this stage, the allegations are general in nature and do not disclose specific circumstances indicating a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very beginning. Hence, he prays for quashment of the impugned FIR. 5 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses cognizable allegations 4 against the petitioner and that the investigation is presently in progress. It is submitted that the investigating agency is in the process of collecting relevant evidence and recording the statements of witnesses for a fair and complete investigation into the allegations made by the complainant. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has not yet culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet and, therefore, it would be premature for this Hon'ble Court to examine the factual merits of the allegations or to interfere with the statutory process of investigation. The truthfulness, correctness, and evidentiary value of the allegations are matters that are yet to be examined by the investigating agency. It is contended that at this stage sufficient material exists to justify continuation of the investigation and that the petitioner has not made out any exceptional ground warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in the exercise of its inherent/jurisdictional powers. She therefore prays that the petition, being premature and devoid of merit, be dismissed, leaving the investigating agency free to complete the investigation in accordance with law. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 The undisputed position emerging from the record is that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.5, FIR No. 02/2026 has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is also not in dispute that the investigation is still in progress and that 5 no final report/charge-sheet has yet been filed before the competent Court. 8 At this stage, the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the investigating agency is yet to complete the process of collection and evaluation of evidence. The questions as to whether the relationship between the parties was consensual, whether any promise of marriage was made, whether such promise was false from its inception, and whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are ultimately established, are matters which fall within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. These issues involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings seeking interference at a nascent stage of investigation. 9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with great caution and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, the Supreme Court reiterated that ordinarily courts should not thwart or stifle a legitimate investigation and that interference at the stage of investigation is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. 6 The Court emphasized that when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, the investigating agency must ordinarily be permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law. 10 In the present case, this Court does not find that the case falls within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference at this stage. The investigation is admittedly incomplete and no charge-sheet has yet been filed. Any observation on the merits of the rival contentions at this stage may prejudice either side and interfere with the ongoing investigation. 11 In view of the aforesaid facts and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercising extraordinary/inherent jurisdiction to interdict the investigation at this stage. 12 Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the investigating agency while conducting the investigation or the competent Court while considering the matter at any subsequent stage. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to proceed with and conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra