1 CGHC010322362026 2026:CGHC:37000-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2174 of 2026 Ratna Kashyap S/o Shri Ratiram Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.02, Vill- Pacheda, P.S. Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - ACB (The Details of the Complainant/ Respondent No.02, Is Being Filed In The Closed Envelope) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed U/s 528 of BNSS. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 08.12.2025 bearing Crime No. 1061/2025 registered at P.S. Janjgir, Dist.- Janjgir- Champa for the offences punishable U/s 78 (1) (i) of BNS. 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet No. 24/2026 dated 13.01.2026 filed for the offences punishable U/s 78 (1) (i) of BNS (354D of IPC) and Section 12 of POCSO Act before learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Janjgir. Dist.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 23.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge FTSC (POCSO) Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 5. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of framing of charged dated 29.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge FTSC (POCSO) Janjgir. Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable U/s 78 (2), 79 of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act. 6. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending in Special Session Case No. 03/2026 pending before learned District and Session Judge (F.T.C.) Korba, Dist.- Korba 3 (CG.). 7. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent No. 2 lodged a written complaint on 08.12.2025 alleging that on 05.12.2025 at about 04:15 p.m. after the school, when she was returning towards her home, the petitioner came from his yard and by making gestures called her, and the day before 05.12.2025 also the petitioner was stalking her. It is further alleged that the petitioner has molested her, therefore the complaint is being lodged against him. On the written complaint of the respondent No. 2, the police of Police Station, Janjgir registered Crime No. 1061/2025 on 08.12.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 78(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and arrested the petitioner on 10.12.2025 and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet on 13.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(i) of the BNS and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act). 4. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against the petitioner. He further submits that earlier the 4 complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 674/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir on 28.07.2025 against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 65 (1) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act alleging that the petitioner/accused and complainant both are of the same village and the petitioner/accused assured her that after taking divorce from his wife, he will perform marriage with her and on the pretext of marriage, made physical relationship on different dates, wherein the petitioner/accused was arrested on 29.07.2025 and after investigation of the said, the charge sheet was filed on 08.08.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 65 (1) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court/Additional Session Judge FTSC (POCSO) Janjgir, Dist Janjgir-Champa took cognizance on 23.01.2026 and directed to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner and the Special Session Case No. 03/2026 was registered against the petitioner. Charges were framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 78(2), 79 of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act vide order dated 29.01.2026. During the pendency of trial, the uncle of the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 and two other witnesses had been examined. In the meantime the respondent No. 2/complainant and the petitioner/accused entered into a compromise and filed an application under Section 359 (2) of the BNSS. The learned Trial Court recorded the compromise statement of the respondent No.2/complainant and her 5 grandmother on 14.05.2026, but thereafter rejected the said application vide order dated 14.05.2026. The petitioner filed the bail application before this Hon'ble Court and after considering the facts, circumstances and nature of dispute between the parties, this Hon'ble Court granted bail to the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 1750/2026 vide order dated 25.03.2026. However, after release of the petitioner/accused on bail, the complainant/respondent No. 02 and her family members concocted the story and made a false complaint against the petitioner to implicate him in other criminal case and made vague allegations of making gestures to call her and of stalking her, therefore again the Crime No. 1061/2025 has been registered against the petitioner on 08.12.2025 wherein the petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2025 and released on bail on 25.03.2026. As such, the impugned FIR, the charge sheet, the order of taking cognizance, the order framing charge and subsequent criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and as such, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, when prima facie it was found that a cognizable offence is made out, the Police has registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The charge sheet has already been filed, the learned trial Court has also taken cognizance of the matter and charges have also been framed and there has been substantial progress in the case and as such, at 6 this stage, no interference is warranted. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where interference is otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of exercising such jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or undertake an enquiry into the disputed questions of fact which are required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner may raise all the objections and pleas before the learned trial Court concerned. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. The principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in Crime No. 1061/2025 are false, vague and have subsequently been introduced as a counterblast to the earlier prosecution instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. It is also contended that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the ingredients of Sections 78(1)(i) of the BNS and 12 of the POCSO Act are not attracted. 8. The contention, however, cannot be accepted at this stage. The allegation in the complaint is that while respondent No.2 was 7 returning towards her home after school, the petitioner came from his yard, made gestures and called her, and that on the preceding day also he had been stalking her. The charge-sheet is stated to have been filed after investigation and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges. Thus, the prosecution material is not confined merely to an uninvestigated allegation contained in the complaint; the investigating agency, after investigation, has found sufficient material to place the petitioner on trial. 9. The scope of the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is well settled. The power is undoubtedly wide, but is extraordinary in nature and has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with circumspection. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court illustrated the categories in which interference may be justified, including a case where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. At the same time, the power cannot be exercised for the purpose of conducting a meticulous examination of the evidence or deciding disputed questions of fact. 10. The principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, wherein the Court emphasised that the High Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or 8 genuineness of the allegations and should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing. 11. Likewise, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court explained that interference at the stage of framing of charge is warranted where the proceedings suffer from a patent legal defect or where the material on record, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of the alleged offence. The Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence at that stage. 12. In the present case, the allegation that the petitioner repeatedly followed/stalked the victim and made gestures calling her cannot, at this stage, be brushed aside as inherently absurd or impossible. Whether the alleged conduct satisfies the ingredients of Section 78 of the BNS, and whether the acts complained of were accompanied by the requisite sexual intent so as to constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 11 punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, are matters which depend upon the evidence to be led before the learned Trial Court. 13. In this regard, the question of sexual intent under Section 11 of the POCSO Act is essentially a question of fact. The same principle has been recognised in Mete Sai Kiran v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1465, wherein it was observed that sexual intent is to be inferred from the facts and 9 circumstances of each case and is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence. Therefore, at the present stage, this Court cannot conclusively determine the absence of sexual intent merely on the basis of the petitioner's interpretation of the allegations. 14. The further submission that the present prosecution is a false case and a counterblast to the earlier criminal case also cannot be accepted in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The existence of an earlier FIR, the subsequent compromise application, the statements recorded in the earlier proceedings and the alleged conduct of the complainant and her family members may constitute matters relevant to the defence of the petitioner, but these circumstances by themselves do not demonstrate, on the face of the record, that the present prosecution is so manifestly mala fide or inherently improbable that its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 15. The fact that the complainant had earlier instituted a criminal case against the petitioner does not, by itself, render a subsequent complaint false. Whether the subsequent prosecution was instituted as a genuine complaint regarding a separate occurrence or as a counterblast is a disputed factual question which cannot appropriately be determined without appreciation of the evidence. The defence version and the alleged motive for false implication can be placed before the learned Trial Court. 10 16. It is also significant that substantial progress has already been made in the proceedings. The charge-sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed. In such circumstances, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is required to exercise greater restraint and should not substitute its assessment of the disputed factual circumstances for that of the Trial Court. 17. The Supreme Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129, has reiterated that the High Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, does not function as a court of appeal or revision and should normally refrain from rendering a prima facie decision where the facts are incomplete, disputed or require appreciation of evidence. 18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot, at this stage, be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or legally incapable of constituting the alleged offences as would warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. The petitioner's reliance upon the compromise entered into in the earlier case also does not assist him in the present proceedings. The alleged compromise was admittedly the subject matter of proceedings before the learned Trial Court in the earlier case, and 11 the said compromise cannot, by itself, furnish a legal basis for quashing a subsequent prosecution arising out of a separate alleged occurrence. The correctness, genuineness and effect of the allegations in the present case are matters for determination on the basis of evidence. 20. Consequently, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with Crime No. 1061/2025, the consequential charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance, the order framing charges or the subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. 21. Accordingly, the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence available on record and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation, if any, made in this order. 22. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible grounds available to him before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The learned Trial Court shall consider such contentions in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra