1 CGHC010374942024 2026:CGHC:31933-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2918 of 2024 Kundan Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pachpedi P.S. Thelkadih, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Thelkadih, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai , Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devsharan Verma S/o Bahadur Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Mahrumkhurdm Tehlkadih, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - ABC ( Now Major ) Nil ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate (for complainant) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.27 16:13:46 +0530 2 petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “A) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set-a-side the F.I.R. No.113/2021, Dated:15/10/2021, registered with P.D. Thelkadih, and the charge-sheet filed the said crime no., in the interest of Justice. B) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charges that have been framed against petitioner vide order dated 27/08/2024 in Special Session Trial No. 28/2024, pending before Ld. Special Additional Session Judge, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon. C) That any other relief Hon'ble Court deems feet may also be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village- Pachpedi, Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. The victim and the petitioner came into contact with each other and developed a consensual love relationship. After the relationship continued for about a year, the father of the victim came to know about the same and strongly opposed it. Aggrieved by the relationship, he started assaulting and pressurising the victim. Consequently, the victim left her parental home and voluntarily accompanied the 3 petitioner. Thereafter, with an intention to implicate the petitioner, the father of the victim lodged Crime No. 71/2021 at Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, on allegations arising out of the same relationship. After investigation, the matter was tried as Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No. 41/2021 before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon. Upon a full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 21.04.2026, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges after holding that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner, had not supported the allegations of kidnapping or sexual assault, and that the prosecution had failed to establish that she was a minor or to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the aforesaid proceedings arising from the same relationship, the complainant again lodged the present FIR bearing Crime No. 113/2021 by suppressing the earlier prosecution, which is the subject matter of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, a material subsequent event has taken place which has a direct bearing on the issues involved herein. It is submitted that the complainant had earlier lodged Crime No. 71/2021 at Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, against the present petitioner on substantially the same allegations arising out of the very same relationship between the petitioner and the victim. After completion of investigation, the matter culminated into Special Criminal 4 (POCSO) Case No. 41/2021, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, by judgment dated 21.04.2026, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the victim herself had deposed that she had voluntarily contacted the petitioner and accompanied him of her own free will to Hyderabad and Surat. The victim did not support the prosecution case regarding kidnapping or forcible sexual intercourse and specifically stated that no such incident had taken place with her. The Trial Court further held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was a minor at the relevant point of time and, therefore, failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. 5. It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgment is a vital and relevant document for the adjudication of the present petition as the instant prosecution has also been initiated by the same complainant in respect of the same relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The findings recorded by the competent criminal court, after a full-fledged trial, clearly demonstrate that the allegations levelled by the complainant do not withstand judicial scrutiny. The earlier judgment, therefore, goes to the root of the matter and materially affects the continuation of the present 5 proceedings. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the application, submits that the petitioner has rightly been charge-sheeted after completion of investigation and that the allegations disclosed in the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie make out the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. It is contended that the validity and evidentiary value of the prosecution case cannot be examined in proceedings of the present nature and that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the reliance on the judgment of acquittal passed in Crime No. 71/2021, involves disputed questions of fact which can be considered only during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the earlier acquittal does not ipso facto render the present FIR or the charge-sheet illegal, as the present prosecution is based upon a separate FIR and the issues raised by the petitioner require appreciation of evidence. The learned State counsel, therefore, prays that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the petition and supported the registration of the impugned FIR as well as the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. It was submitted that the allegations disclosed in the 6 FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie constitute the offences alleged and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to face trial. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the fact that an earlier FIR, namely Crime No. 71/2021, had been registered by the same complainant against the petitioner in respect of the same relationship between the petitioner and the victim and that, after a full-fledged trial, the petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, by judgment dated 21.04.2026. The factum of the petitioner’s acquittal in the earlier case and the findings recorded therein remained undisputed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- 7 “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and 8 the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling 9 and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the undisputed factual position is that the complainant had earlier lodged Crime No. 71/2021 at Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, against the present petitioner on substantially similar allegations arising out of the same relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The said prosecution culminated in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No. 41/2021, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, by judgment dated 21.04.2026, acquitted the petitioner of all the charges after a full-fledged trial. The Trial Court recorded categorical findings that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner, did not support the allegations of kidnapping or sexual assault, and that the prosecution had failed to establish even her minority beyond reasonable doubt. Significantly, the factum of the petitioner’s acquittal in the earlier case has not been disputed either by the learned State counsel or by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The said judgment, therefore, constitutes a material subsequent event having a direct bearing on the present proceedings. 12. This Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the present prosecution to continue, despite the earlier adjudication between the same parties arising out of the same relationship and substantially similar allegations, would amount to permitting abuse of the process of the Court. The continuation of the criminal 11 proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the subsequent judgment of acquittal dated 21.04.2026, this Court is satisfied that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR bearing No. 113/2021 registered at Police Station- Thelkadih, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, the consequent charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 28/2024, pending before the Court of learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet