1 CGHC010257012026 2026:CGHC:28080-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1744 of 2026 Praveen Mishra Alias Golu S/o Kamal Prasad Mishra Aged About 30 Years Rawatpura Colony, Phase-2, Bhatagaon Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 – XYZ ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.C.Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Md.Shahid Raza, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Y.C.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Md. Shahid Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “i) The FIR dated 28.05.25 registered at PS New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (CG) for the offence U/s- 69 of BNS bearing Crime No. 106/2025 lodged against the Petitioner. ii) The Charge-sheet dated 19.08.2025 filed before the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence U/s-69 of BNS having charge-sheet No. 91/2025 filed against the present petitioner. Iii) The Cognizance order passed against the Petitioner in Criminal Case No. 30829/2025 by the Learned Court of Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 69 of BNS and the whole criminal proceeding which is pending as Session Trial No. 314/2025 before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for kind consideration.” 3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No. 2/victim appeared at the Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, on 28.05.2025 and submitted a written complaint application, on the basis of which an FIR was registered. She stated that the petitioner had worked in the Billing Department of Anant Sai Hospital during the year 2021–22, and during the same period she was also working there as a ward girl. Through this, she became acquainted with the appellant. The appellant used to tell the victim that he loved her and would marry her. By giving the respondent No. 2 the inducement of marriage, forcibly established physical relations with her in Anant Sai Hospital, and thereafter established physical relations with her victim several times in the same hospital. Whenever the victim spoke about marriage, the appellant would evade the matter. Thereafter, the appellant told the victim that he would marry her in Court, and on 22.04.2025 he took her to Dongargarh Temple and filled vermilion in the parting of her hair and put a mangalsutra around her neck. Thereafter, the appellant was living with the victim at Lalpur. The appellant, after taking the victim into confidence by saying that he would perform a court marriage, established physical relations with her. On 3 21.05.2025, appellant left the victim and went to his parents’ house at Bhatagaon. When the victim contacted him by phone, appellant stated that he would not marry her. On the basis of the victim’s report, an FIR for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court concerned and the matter is pending consideration as Sessions Trial No. 314/2025. 4. Mr. Y.C.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the whole prosecution case is taken on face value, then also the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is not attracted against the petitioner. Even in the deposition before the learned trial Court, the victim herself has stated that because of anger and due to some dispute between the appellant and the victim, the victim had lodged a false complaint and she has been declared hostile. She has further stated that she does not want to pursue her complaint. In her cross examination, she has specifically deposed that the police personnel had obtained her signatures on blank paper and because of some misunderstanding and dispute between them, she had lodged the FIR. Hence, this petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that when a complaint was made by the victim/respondent No.2 and prima facie a cognizable offence was found to be made out, the police registered the FIR and after completion of investigation, when sufficient evidence was found out, charge sheet was filed and now the matter is subjudice before the learned trial Court. It has further been submitted that charge has been 4 framed and some of the prosecution witnesses have also been examined and the trial is at an advanced stage. As such, it would not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceedings. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS s extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Such jurisdiction is not intended to short- circuit a legitimate prosecution or to undertake an appreciation of evidence, particularly when the trial is already in progress. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after registration of the FIR, investigation was completed, charge-sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed and the trial has substantially progressed. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the victim has already been examined and the matter is further fixed for examination of the remaining witnesses. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is founded upon the deposition of the victim before the trial Court wherein she is stated to have resiled from her earlier version. Whether the testimony of the victim inspires confidence, whether her hostility affects the prosecution case, and what evidentiary value is to be attached to her deposition are all matters which squarely fall within the domain of the trial Court. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon an appreciation of the evidence already recorded or record any finding on the merits of the rival contentions while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. Once the trial has reached an advanced stage and evidence is being 5 recorded, interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would not be appropriate except in the rarest of cases where continuation of the proceedings would manifestly amount to abuse of the process of law. On the facts of the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all permissible factual and legal contentions before the learned trial Court, which shall consider the same independently and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or the criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 11.Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. However, considering that the trial has already reached an advanced stage, the learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, subject to there being no legal impediment. 12.Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Chandra