1 CGHC010273922026 2026:CGHC:30821-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1876 of 2026 Jagjivan Yadav S/o Janakram Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Samlai Pipriya, P.S. Pasaan, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pasaan, Korba District Korba C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Mr. Shubham Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.22 10:34:51 +0530 2 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the FIR dated 02.08.2024 Annexure P/1 registered as Crime No. 115 of 2024 at Police Station – Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the entire charge-sheet No. 95 of 2024 Annexure P/2 dated 27.09.2024 filed by the respondent No. 1/prosecution in connection with Crime No. 115/2024 at Police Station – Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/terminate the entire consequential criminal proceedings Annexure P/4 arising out of the impugned 3 FIR and charge-sheet, currently pending as Special Case (SC/ST) No. 17 of 2024 before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, District Korba (C.G.), including the order taking cognizance dated 28.09.2024, in the interest of justice. 4. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the charge-sheet dated 26.10.2024 Annexure P/5 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 69, 296 & 351(2) of BNS & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner/accused, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the prosecution case, on 02.08.2024 at about 4:45 p.m., the victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Pasaan, District Korba (C.G.), alleging that in July 2024 she had received a phone call from mobile number 8103091512. Although she initially missed the call, she returned it and spoke with a person who introduced himself as Shubham Pawale, claiming to be a Patwari residing at Matin and posted at Madanpur Puta. It is alleged that after frequent telephonic conversations over several days, the petitioner requested the victim to send her photograph and promised to marry her, thereby gaining her confidence. The victim further alleged that, relying upon the said promise of marriage, she accompanied the petitioner to Gupta Lodge, Katghora, where he established physical relations with her despite her initial reluctance by assuring her that they would soon get married. It is further alleged that the petitioner again took her to Marhimata Temple at Pendra and 4 thereafter to Jain Lodge, Pendra, where physical relations were established on the same assurance. Subsequently, the victim allegedly discovered that the petitioner's real name was Jagjivan Yadav, that he was neither a Patwari nor a member of her caste, and that upon confronting him, he abused and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone or approached the police. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 115/2024 was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences and, after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’). The trial is presently pending before the learned trial Court, wherein five out of twenty-two prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have already been examined. He further contended that during the pendency of the trial, the victim voluntarily expressed her desire not to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the victim has categorically stated that the dispute arose due to misunderstanding and confusion and that she now wishes to move forward with her life. It is submitted that she intends to solemnize her marriage with another person, and the continuation of the present criminal proceedings has become an impediment to her future prospects and rehabilitation. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the victim has also executed an affidavit dated 11.05.2026, which is annexed as Annexure P/6 in the present petition affirming that she is no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioner and that her decision has been taken voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, inducement or pressure from any quarter, solely keeping in view her future welfare and peaceful life. He further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CRMP No. 1484 of 2026. However, the said petition was withdrawn with the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Court, and thereafter, in view of the subsequent developments, particularly the victim’s unequivocal decision not to continue with the prosecution, the present petition has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further argue that in view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the victim, who is the principal witness, has voluntarily decided not to pursue the prosecution and has expressed her desire to put a quietus to the entire dispute. In such circumstances, compelling the parties to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial would merely result in unnecessary hardship and futile litigation. He further stated that this Hon'ble Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, is empowered to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it has been held that 6 the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) are of wide plenitude and are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of each case. It has further been held that where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings so as to secure the ends of justice. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the possibility of securing conviction has become extremely remote in view of the subsequent conduct and categorical stand of the prosecutrix. Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings would not advance the cause of justice but would only prolong unnecessary litigation and result in abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner is facing trial for offences 7 punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the BNS as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. It is submitted that the allegations pertain to serious offences having a direct impact upon society and, therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a subsequent affidavit or an alleged settlement between the parties. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial has substantially progressed and, out of the total twenty-two prosecution witnesses, five prosecution witnesses, including the victim, have already been examined before the learned trial Court. It is contended that during the course of her examination, the victim has fully supported the prosecution case and has specifically deposed regarding the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that once the substantive evidence of the victim has already been recorded before the competent Court, the subsequent affidavit expressing her unwillingness to continue the prosecution cannot nullify or efface her testimony already recorded on oath. He further stated that the evidentiary value and credibility of the testimony of the victim are matters to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court upon appreciation of the entire evidence and cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8 13. The principal ground urged by the petitioner for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is that, during the pendency of the trial, the victim has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the prosecution and has executed an affidavit stating that the criminal case arose out of misunderstanding and that she intends to move forward with her life. However, from the record it is evident that the criminal trial has already commenced and has reached a substantial stage. Out of twenty-two prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, five witnesses have already been examined, including the victim herself, whose testimony constitutes the foundation of the prosecution case. 14. A perusal of the deposition of the victim recorded before the learned trial Court reveals that she has supported the prosecution case and has made specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the commission of the alleged offences. Once a witness has entered the witness box and her evidence has been recorded on oath before the competent Court, any subsequent affidavit expressing unwillingness to pursue the prosecution cannot, by itself, render such testimony inconsequential or wipe out the evidentiary value attached to the statement recorded during trial. Whether the testimony inspires confidence, whether it suffers from contradictions or omissions, and what weight is required to be attached thereto, are matters which squarely fall within the exclusive domain of the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence at the conclusion of the trial. 15. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of 9 the BNSS is undoubtedly of wide amplitude; however, the same is required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional cases where such exercise is necessary either to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that although the High Court possesses wide powers to quash criminal proceedings, such power cannot ordinarily be exercised in respect of heinous and serious offences, particularly offences like murder, rape and other offences having a serious impact on society, merely because the parties have settled their disputes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that such offences are not private in nature but are offences against society and, therefore, cannot be treated at par with disputes having overwhelmingly civil or personal flavour. 16. In the present case, the petitioner is facing trial for offences under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of the trial and the fact that the victim has already entered the witness box and supported the prosecution case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the subsequent affidavit allegedly executed by the victim cannot constitute a valid ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. 17. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the possibility of conviction has become remote also does not merit acceptance. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous 10 examination of the evidence already adduced or record any finding regarding its reliability or sufficiency. The appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused lie exclusively within the province of the learned trial Court. Interference by this Court at this stage would amount to prejudging the issues which are yet to be adjudicated by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the nature of the allegations, the stage of the criminal proceedings, the fact that five prosecution witnesses including the victim have already been examined and the victim has supported the prosecution case before the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein is confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the criminal case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan