1 CGHC010223592026 2026:CGHC:29216-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1801 of 2026 Viru Sahu S/o Rajendra Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Indouri, Tehsil And P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2. The Director General of Police Police Department, New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3. Superintendent of Police Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. 5. Maheshwari Sahu D/o Topiram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Kabirha Para, Manikchouri,district Kabirdham C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.13 17:26:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. The present petition 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 BNS, 2023 field by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 536 of 2025 registered on dated 19.12.2025 at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh filed under Section 69 of BNS 2023 in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge-sheet dated 04.02.2026 before learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO) District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash cognizance taken by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO), District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh in the interest of justice. 5. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash charge dated 08.05.2026 and entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2026 pending before the learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO), District Kabirdham, 3 Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 6. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written report alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), registered FIR bearing Crime No. 536/2025 on 19.12.2025. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)/Special Judge (POCSO), District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, where Sessions Trial No. 07/2026 is presently pending. Charges under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) were framed against the petitioner on 08.05.2026 and the trial is in progress. He further contended that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) before the learned trial Court seeking discharge; however, the same came to be rejected by order dated 08.05.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned FIR has been lodged after an unexplained and considerable delay. According to the prosecution itself, the alleged incident took place 4 during the period from 01.11.2025 to 04.11.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 19.12.2025. It is contended that no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for such delay, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. He also contended that no incriminating article or material connected with the alleged incident was recovered or seized from the possession of the petitioner during the course of investigation. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent material linking the petitioner with the alleged offence. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that even a bare reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The allegations are vague, omnibus and do not prima facie establish the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. He also submitted that the charge-sheet dated 04.02.2026 has been filed without sufficient legal evidence and that the material collected during investigation does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations, according to the petitioner, are false, baseless and have been levelled with an ulterior motive. He further contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the complaint has been instituted on false and fabricated allegations, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and tarnishing his reputation. 7. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 5 even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, no offence under Section 69 of the BNS is made out against the petitioner. In the absence of any legally admissible and incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be wholly unjustified. He further submits that there is no other efficacious or alternative remedy available to the petitioner except to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. After conducting a detailed investigation, the Investigating Agency collected sufficient material and filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, upon consideration of the police report and the material collected during investigation, found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly framed charges against him under Section 69 of the BNS on 08.05.2026. It is further submitted that once charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced, the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, as 6 the same require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. 9. Learned State counsel further submits that the contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR, absence of recovery, falsity of the allegations and insufficiency of evidence are purely matters of defence, which are required to be established before the learned trial Court and cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC 7 (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that 8 investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 14. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 15. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations that the petitioner established physical relations with the victim on the promise 9 of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, the Investigating Agency conducted investigation and, upon finding sufficient material, submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the police report and the material collected during investigation, found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner and framed charges against him under Section 69 of the BNS by order dated 08.05.2026. Admittedly, the order framing charge has not been set aside and the criminal trial is already in progress. 16. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, absence of recovery of any incriminating article, insufficiency of evidence and falsity of the allegations are all matters involving disputed questions of fact. Such pleas constitute matters of defence and require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which can only be undertaken by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings on the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. 17. On a prima facie consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the material forming part of the charge-sheet, this Court is satisfied that the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and furnish sufficient grounds for the petitioner to face trial. Therefore, it cannot be 10 said that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court or that no offence is made out against the petitioner warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. This Court is further of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) or Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge- sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. Likewise, the petitioner has not placed on record any material of sterling and impeccable quality which completely demolishes the prosecution case. On the contrary, the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the learned trial Court, after considering the material collected during investigation, has already framed charges against the petitioner under Section 69 of the BNS on 08.05.2026. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error either in the registration of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet, taking of cognizance or framing of charges so as to warrant interference in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since charges have 11 already been framed against the petitioner and the trial is in progress, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made in this order and shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan