1 CGHC010288932026 2026:CGHC:32476-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1962 of 2026 Sumit Guruwani S/o Rajesh Guruwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Tahbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Monika Deep D/o Kaliram Janardan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jawali Korba, Police Station Banki Mongra District Korba (C.G.) Present Address- D80 Devendra Nagar, Sector 5 Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the fit in crime no. Fir no. 236/2026 at police station Tarbahar district Bilaspur (c.g.) Against the petitioner for an offence under section 69 of bns and section 3(2)(v) of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, in the interest of justice.” 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/respondent No.2 became acquainted with the petitioner through the Snapchat application in February, 2025. It is alleged that on 22.03.2026, the petitioner called her to Bilaspur, took her to Hotel Shree Shyam International, and established physical relations with her against her will on the false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that subsequently the petitioner refused to marry her after coming to know that she belongs to the Satnami caste. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No. 0236/2026 was registered on 15.07.2026 at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 3 as a counterblast to the earlier complaints and proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner and 3 respondent No.3 were known to each other and were in a relationship for more than one and a half years. During the subsistence of the said relationship, the parties, who are educated and mature individuals, were in a consensual relationship, and the allegations subsequently levelled by the complainant regarding establishment of physical relations on the false promise of marriage are wholly false, misconceived, and an afterthought. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to registration of the impugned FIR dated 15.07.2026, the petitioner had already submitted detailed complaints dated 08.07.2026 and 09.07.2026 before the concerned authorities regarding the conduct of the complainant, particularly her threats to commit suicide and to falsely implicate the petitioner in a criminal case if he did not agree to marry her. It is argued that these prior complaints clearly demonstrate the conduct and intention of the complainant and establish that the subsequent FIR has been lodged only with a view to exert pressure upon the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 11.07.2026, the complainant herself entered the residential premises of the petitioner without lawful authority and created an altercation, during which she allegedly assaulted a relative of the petitioner. Due to the said incident, the complainant was taken away by the '112' emergency response police team, and thereafter the sister of the petitioner lodged a criminal report against the complainant in respect of the said occurrence. Learned counsel submits that immediately thereafter, within a 4 short span of four days, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, which clearly indicates that the criminal proceedings are nothing but a retaliatory action and an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel further submits that even if the entire allegations contained in the FIR are accepted on their face value, no offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is argued that the essential ingredient for attracting the said provision is the existence of a promise to marry made with dishonest intention from the very inception, which induced the complainant to enter into a physical relationship. In the present case, there is no specific allegation or material to establish that the petitioner had made any false promise of marriage with a dishonest intention at the beginning of the relationship. On the contrary, the allegations themselves indicate that the parties were in a relationship for a considerable period, which was consensual in nature between two adults. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is wholly unjustified and without any factual foundation. It is submitted that the FIR does not disclose any intentional insult, intimidation, or commission of any offence against the complainant on the ground that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The caste allegation has been introduced only with a view to give a more serious colour to a purely personal dispute arising out of an 5 alleged relationship between two individuals. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law, registered with mala fide intention and as a counterblast to the earlier complaints made by the petitioner. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in undue harassment to the petitioner and cause miscarriage of justice. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR at the initial stage is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that the FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No. 3/complainant disclosing commission of cognizable offences, and therefore, the investigating agency is required to be granted an opportunity to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the present case involves allegations and counter allegations between the parties. While the petitioner alleges that the FIR has been lodged falsely as a counterblast to the earlier complaints made by him against the complainant, the complainant has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner regarding obtaining physical relations on the promise of marriage and subsequent refusal to marry her. Both 6 sides have placed reliance upon their respective versions, the correctness of which requires examination of facts and evidence. 9. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake an inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations made in the FIR or examine the defence of the petitioner regarding the consensual nature of the relationship, the alleged prior complaints, or the possibility of false implication. The issues as to whether the relationship was consensual, whether there existed a false promise of marriage from the inception, whether the FIR is a counterblast, and whether the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attracted, are matters which can be determined only after proper investigation and appreciation of evidence. 10. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 11. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial 7 or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 12. 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. 8 13. It is settled law that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of FIR, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or evaluate the defence of the accused. If the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, interference at the threshold is not warranted. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations requiring investigation, and therefore, the same cannot be quashed merely on the basis of the defence raised by the petitioner or the existence of allegations and counter allegations between the parties. 14. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 16. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not affect the merits of the case during investigation or any subsequent proceedings. 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra