1 CGHC010309522026 2026:CGHC:35765-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2126 of 2026 Vivek Prajapati S/o Shri Amreshwar Prajapati Aged About 26 Years Occupation Private Service, Resident Of Village Dhanpuri, Post Chandranagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, C.G. 2 - The Superintendent of Police Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, C.G. 3 - X.Y.Z. Nil. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General / State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayers :- “1. May kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR dated 07.05.2026 bearing Crime No. 260/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), for the alleged offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; 2. Quash the Charge-sheet/Final Report dated 30.05.2026 bearing Charge-sheet No. 193/2026 submitted by Police Station Gandhinagar before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh); 3. Quash the order taking cognizance passed by the Learned Court below with all subsequent proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 6738/2026 pending before the Learned Court below 4. Any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the petition, are that the Petitioner was in a consensual relationship with Respondent No.3 since 2023, after having become acquainted through social media. During the course of their relationship, both parties mutually expressed their intention to marry and, with the consent of their respective families, the marriage was fixed. The ceremonies were scheduled for 29.04.2026 (Tilak), 30.04.2026 (Mandap), and 02.05.2026 (Barat). Pursuant to the fixation of marriage and with the knowledge and consent of the girl's family, the Petitioner and the girl also undertook a pre-wedding 3 pilgrimage to Mahakaleshwar, Ujjain, and Omkareshwar on 05.03.2026 and 07.03.2026 respectively. The Tilak ceremony was duly performed on 29.04.2026 in the presence of both families. However, on 30.04.2026, i.e., the date fixed for the Mandap ceremony, the girl informed the Petitioner that she was no longer willing to marry him and sought monetary compensation for their relationship, allegedly threatening to initiate criminal proceedings against him in the event of non-payment. Immediately thereafter, on 30.04.2026, the Petitioner submitted written representations before the Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj), and the Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujganj, apprising them of the incident and expressing his continued willingness to solemnize the marriage. Pursuant thereto, Non-Cognizable Offence Information Report No. 100/2026 was registered at Police Station Ramanujganj. The Petitioner also submitted a similar representation before Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, pursuant to which Non- Cognizable Offence Information Report No. 37/2026 was registered. Thereafter, on 07.05.2026, FIR bearing Crime No. 260/2026 was registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, against the Petitioner for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he had established a physical relationship with the girl on the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. The Petitioner was subsequently arrested on 23.05.2026, and 4 after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet/final report bearing Charge-sheet No.193/2026 dated 30.05.2026 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in connection with the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner preferred an application for grant of bail before the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja bearing Bail Application No. 401/2026, which was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 03.06.2026 by the said Court. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner with aforequoted prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are false, misconceived and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 was consensual from its inception and that both parties had voluntarily entered into the relationship and had mutually agreed to marry each other. The marriage was duly fixed with the knowledge and consent of their respective family members, and the Tilak ceremony was also performed on 29.04.2026 in the presence of both families. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had, at all material times, remained ready and willing to solemnize the marriage. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made against the Petitioner are an afterthought, particularly in view of the fact that immediately upon Respondent No.3 expressing her unwillingness to proceed with the marriage and 5 allegedly threatening the Petitioner with criminal proceedings, the Petitioner approached the police authorities on 30.04.2026 and apprised them of the entire incident. The subsequent registration of Non-Cognizable Offence Information Reports at Police Station Ramanujganj and Police Station Lundra demonstrates that the Petitioner had approached the authorities prior to registration of the impugned FIR. It is, therefore, submitted that the subsequent allegations that the Petitioner had obtained the consent of Respondent No.3 by making a false promise of marriage are wholly misconceived. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the Petitioner is alleged to have established a physical relationship with Respondent No. 3 on the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to solemnize the marriage. The allegations are supported by the statements and material collected during investigation, pursuant to which charge-sheet has already been filed. It is, therefore, submitted that the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and no ground for quashing is made out. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the FIR, coupled with the material collected 6 during investigation and the charge-sheet filed before the competent Court, prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The specific allegation against the Petitioner is that he established physical relations with Respondent No. 3 on the pretext/promise of marriage and subsequently failed to solemnize the marriage. Whether such promise was genuine or false from its inception, and whether the consent of Respondent No. 3 was obtained by employing deceitful means, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the well-settled parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. Such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR cannot, at this stage, be said to be inherently improbable or incapable of constituting the alleged offence. 8. Further, in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should ordinarily 7 not stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold and should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. 9. Likewise, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the material so as to convert the proceedings into a mini-trial. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has distinguished between a false promise of marriage made with no intention of being fulfilled from the inception and a mere subsequent breach of a genuine promise to marry. 10. However, in the facts of the present case, the determination of the Petitioner's intention at the inception of the relationship and the circumstances in which the physical relationship was established are matters requiring evidence. The contemporaneous documents relied upon by the Petitioner, including the proposed marriage ceremonies and representations made by him to the police authorities, may constitute matters of defence, but their evidentiary effect cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present proceedings. It is also significant that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet bearing No. 193/2026 has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. The Petitioner has already been granted bail, and therefore, the question of his continued custody does not 8 arise for consideration in the present proceedings. The grant of bail, by itself, does not furnish a ground for quashing the criminal prosecution. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings. The disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the circumstances surrounding the promise of marriage, the voluntariness of consent and the intention of the Petitioner, are matters to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence. 12. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his available grounds and defences before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same uninfluenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra