1 CGHC010253972026 2026:CGHC:29545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1811 of 2026 Onkar Dahariya S/o Shivlal Dahariya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Durug, Police Chowki Beladula, Thana Sarsiwan, Tahsil Bhatgaon District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarsiwan District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2. X Y Z, (The Details Of The Complainant Is Enclosed In The Envelop Annexed With This Petition) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.15 10:37:38 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS by the petitioner and to quash the impugned FIR dated 27.07.2025 bearing Crime No. 234 of 2025 and Final Report No. 221 of 2025 submitted by police station Sarsiwan, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(j), 64(2)(m) and Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure P/1) 2. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 06.10.2024 (Annexure P/2) and framing of charge against the petitioner on dated 20.11.2025 under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 of BNS against the petitioner as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Onkar Dahariya) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Annexure P/3) 3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. He submits that the FIR itself reveals that both the petitioner and the complainant are married persons. The allegations indicate that the parties were acquainted with each other and remained in a relationship over a period of time. Even according to the prosecution 3 case, the alleged physical relationship was continuous and voluntary. It is, therefore, contended that the essential ingredients constituting the offence of rape are not made out from the allegations contained in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the allegations are founded upon an alleged promise of marriage, which is inherently improbable in the facts of the present case, as both the petitioner and the complainant were already legally married to their respective spouses. In such circumstances, any alleged promise of marriage cannot be treated as a valid promise capable of vitiating the complainant's consent in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the complaint came to be lodged on 27.07.2025, nearly two months after the alleged incidents said to have occurred between 22.05.2025 and 29.05.2025, without any plausible explanation for the delay, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a respectable person having no criminal antecedents and is serving as the Vice President of a registered society authorized to operate Government Fair Price Shops. In the course of such official activities, the petitioner came into contact with the complainant and her husband, who are residents of Village Tedibhadra. It is further contended that the complainant herself is an accused in Crime No. 54/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wherein she has been accused of misappropriation of school funds while working as a cashier and was absconding during the pendency of the said case. 4 6. Learned counsel further contended that prior to the registration of the present FIR, the complainant had borrowed money from the petitioner through online transactions and failed to repay the same. During the period when she was absconding in the aforesaid criminal case, she and her husband allegedly approached the petitioner for further financial assistance. Upon the petitioner's refusal to extend additional monetary help, they threatened to implicate him in a false rape case, pursuant to which the present FIR came to be lodged as a counterblast. It is further submitted that this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1267 of 2025, and the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the investigation without misusing the liberty granted to him. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that after completion of the investigation, the police filed Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 221/2025 dated 16.09.2025 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences, and thereafter, vide order dated 14.10.2025, committed the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, where it came to be registered as Sessions Trial No. 48/2025. It is contended that the mere filing of the charge-sheet or taking of cognizance does not preclude this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction where the uncontroverted allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 5 8. It is lastly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that where a relationship between two adults is consensual and the allegations are founded merely upon a failed or unfulfilled promise of marriage, the offence of rape is not attracted unless it is shown that the promise was false from its inception and was made solely with the intention of obtaining consent for sexual relations. It is, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the present case, particularly when both parties were already married, the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged and the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR, the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses recorded during investigation, as well as the material collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that after conducting a fair and complete investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material against the petitioner and accordingly submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. The learned Magistrate, upon being satisfied that a prima facie case existed, took cognizance of the offences and the matter now stands committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 10. Learned State counsel further submits that the pleas raised by the petitioner regarding the consensual nature of the relationship, alleged financial transactions, false implication, previous enmity, delay in lodging the FIR and the criminal case pending against the complainant are all disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and 6 cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). It is submitted that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner can only be examined during the course of trial after evidence is led by the parties. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. 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). 13. 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 (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 7 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. 14. 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 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. 15. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 8 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. 16. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet, and the material collected by the Investigating Officer would reveal that the victim has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner of establishing physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage during the period from 22.05.2025 to 29.05.2025. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner and accordingly submitted Final Report No.221/2025 dated 16.09.2025 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 06.10.2025, and thereafter the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it is pending as Sessions Trial No.48/2025. 9 17. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner, namely, that the relationship was consensual, that both parties were married, that the FIR has been lodged after delay, that the complainant had financial dealings with the petitioner, that she is herself an accused in another criminal case, and that the present prosecution has been initiated as a counterblast, are all matters which constitute the defence of the petitioner. These are disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner can be effectively established only during the course of trial by leading appropriate evidence. The mere existence of defence material or an alternative version of the occurrence cannot furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. 19. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra), and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that the offences alleged are prima facie made out. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds is a matter to be decided by the 10 learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence. 20. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Trial on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan