1 CGHC010285142026 2026:CGHC:31882-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(Cr.) No.414 of 2026 Komal Prasad Ghritalhare Alias Komal Prasad Lahariya S/o Dev Prasad Lahariya, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station - Fasterpur (Setganga), Disrict -Mungeli (C.G.)... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police, Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Ploice, Janjgir, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station -Pamgarh, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 5 - Ms.Jyoti Jogi D/o Gorelal Jogi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Borsi, police Station And Tehsil -Pamgarh, District -Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)(Complainant) ... Respondents SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.28 11:06:21 +0530 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Heard Dr. Arpit Lal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/Respondents. 2. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:- “(a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash First Information Report No.74/2026, registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), on 18.02.2026 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Charge-Sheet No. 80/2026 dated 24.03.2026 filed pursuant thereto, framing of Charge dated 16.06.2026 and all proceedings consequential thereto, qua the petitioner; (b) Pending admission/final hearing of this petition, stay further proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Case/Sessions Trial qua the petitioner; (c) Pass any other order(s) or grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 were in a long-standing consensual relationship for more than seventeen months and therefore, the 3 essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out. He further submits that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statement of Respondent No.5 recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the material collected during investigation disclose material contradictions. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed without awaiting the forensic examination report and that Respondent No.5 has subsequently entered into an amicable settlement with the Petitioner and has no objection to the criminal proceedings against him. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, it is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and therefore, the impugned FIR, charge- sheet, order framing charge and all consequential proceedings may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 4 Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that after due investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the learned trial Court has also framed charges against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by the Petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial and do not warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, therefore, the Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The investigation pursuant to FIR No.74/2026 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has already culminated in filing of Charge-sheet No.80/2026 dated 24.03.2026 and charges have also been framed against the Petitioner vide order dated 16.06.2026. The grounds 5 raised by the Petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings arising out of FIR No.74/2026. 8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Priya