1 CGHC010288692026 2026:CGHC:32489-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1968 of 2026 Ganesh Mishra S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Mishra Aged About 55 Years R/o M-867, New Shakti Nagar Jarhi, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District- Surajpur, C.G. 2 - A.B.C. (Details Mentioned In Sealed Envelop) 3 - X.Y.Z. (Details Mentioned In Sealed Envelop) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, 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. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the First Information Report No. 0451/2026 registered at Police Station Surajpur on 27.06.2026, for the offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the interest of justice. B. That any other relief/directions which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, who was separated from her husband and involved in a maintenance dispute, came into contact with the petitioner, who is employed with SECL, when he visited her village in connection with a land inquiry. Thereafter, they exchanged phone numbers and started meeting frequently near the Surajpur Family Court. It is alleged that the petitioner represented that his divorce had been finalized, expressed his intention to marry the complainant irrespective of caste differences, and assured her family of his ability to maintain her. On the basis of the alleged promise of marriage, the complainant permitted the petitioner to visit her house on 31.12.2025, where he allegedly established a physical relationship with her, which continued till 20.02.2026 and resulted in her pregnancy. It is further alleged that when the complainant demanded fulfilment of 3 the promise of marriage, the petitioner avoided the same, transferred an amount of ₹30,000/- through PhonePe for undergoing abortion, threatened to circulate her intimate photographs and videos, and extended threats to her. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No. 0451/2026 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned FIR is a result of a malicious and motivated attempt by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to harass the petitioner and extort money from him. It is contended that the petitioner himself had already initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant and her mother by lodging FIR No. 0100/2026, wherein specific allegations were made regarding threats, harassment, and an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner for the purpose of extracting money. According to learned counsel, the present FIR has been registered only as a counterblast to the said proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was consensual and that the allegations regarding a false promise of marriage are completely fabricated. It is argued that the petitioner never made any dishonest promise of marriage with an intention to deceive the complainant from the inception, which is an 4 essential requirement for attracting the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. The subsequent dispute between the parties cannot be given the colour of a criminal offence merely because the relationship did not culminate into marriage. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made by the complainant are part of a planned honey- trap strategy adopted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for monetary gains. Learned counsel submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have similarly implicated other persons in false cases with the same intention, and reliance has been placed upon the bail order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court in FIR lodged by the petitioner, wherein observations were allegedly made regarding similar allegations of honey-trap activities involving other persons. Learned counsel further submits that invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is wholly misconceived, as the allegations do not disclose that the alleged acts were committed against the complainant on account of her caste identity. It is contended that the provisions of the special enactment have been invoked only to give a more serious colour to a private dispute arising out of a personal relationship. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned FIR is an abuse of the process of law, registered with mala fide intention and ulterior motive, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment to the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel prays for quashing of FIR No. 0451/2026 5 in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 6. 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 is misconceived and premature. He further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are serious in nature and require a fair and impartial investigation. The petitioner has sought to rely upon the FIR lodged by him against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and has alleged that the present FIR is a counterblast; however, such defence of the petitioner cannot be examined at the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The truthfulness of the allegations, the correctness of the rival versions, and the allegations of false implication are matters which require appreciation of evidence during the course of investigation and trial. 7. 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. 8. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of 6 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 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. 9. 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, 7 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. 10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the present case involves allegations and counter allegations between the parties. While the petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have falsely implicated him as part of a honey-trap and extortion scheme, respondent No. 2 has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner regarding obtaining physical relations on the promise of marriage and subsequently refusing to fulfil the said promise. The correctness or otherwise of these rival allegations requires examination of facts and evidence. 11. At this stage, while considering a petition for quashing of FIR, this Court is required to examine only whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose commission of a cognizable offence. This Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations or evaluate the defence of the accused. The allegations regarding the consensual nature of the relationship, the alleged prior complaints lodged by the petitioner, the accusation of honey-trap, and the authenticity of the complainant's allegations are all matters requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence. 12. The mere fact that the petitioner had lodged a prior FIR against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not, by itself, establish that the subsequent FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 is false or malicious. 8 Both versions placed before this Court require proper investigation. Similarly, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the order passed in the bail proceedings of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be treated as a conclusive determination regarding the allegations made in the present FIR, particularly when the said order was passed only for the purpose of considering bail. 13. So far as the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the same also requires examination on the basis of the material collected during investigation, and the said issue cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of quashing of FIR. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no exceptional ground is made out warranting interference with the criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation. The allegations contained in the FIR require a proper investigation in accordance with law. 15. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the investigation or any subsequent proceedings before the competent court. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra