1 CGHC010309182026 2026:CGHC:35766-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2128 of 2026 Sunil Agrawal S/o Late Shri Tikharam Agrawal Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Goudkhami Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, C. G. P. S. Lormi District Mungeli, C. G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, Mungeli, District Mungeli C. G. 2 - X Y Z (details of the complainant is enclosed with separate envelop) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned FIR dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 269/2026, registered at Police Station Lormi, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m). 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that the Petitioner, a resident of Village Godkhamhi, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), is engaged in the business of distribution of cold drinks and chips, whereas Respondent No. 2/Complainant is also a resident of the same village and is stated to be engaged in domestic work. The impugned FIR dated 23.06.2026, bearing Crime No. 269/2026, was registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the allegations, since 2019, the Petitioner established physical relations with Respondent No.2 on the assurance that he would dissolve his existing marriage and marry her, kept her at Bilaspur for approximately six months and, thereafter, on 18.08.2025, left her at Bilaspur and declined to marry her. Prior to registration of the FIR, the Petitioner had submitted a written representation dated 23.01.2026 to the Station House Officer, Police Station 3 Lormi, with copies to the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, apprehending false implication and alleging that Respondent No. 2 and her associates had demanded 18,00,000/- from him, out of ₹ which 4,50,000/- and 6,00,000/- were allegedly returned. ₹ ₹ Pursuant to registration of the aforesaid FIR, the Petitioner was arrested and thereafter preferred an application for regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mungeli, which was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2026. While granting bail, the learned Court below, inter alia, noticed that the alleged offence had occurred between 2019 and 18.08.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 23.06.2026, i.e. after a delay of approximately ten months. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had also been invoked during investigation. Consequently, he preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below; however, the same was withdrawn by his counsel on 28.07.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition with the aforequoted prayer. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are false, concocted and have been made with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that the alleged relationship commenced in the year 2019, whereas the impugned FIR came to be lodged only on 23.06.2026, after an unexplained delay of about ten months from the alleged last incident dated 4 18.08.2025. It is further submitted that, much prior to registration of the FIR, the Petitioner had submitted a written representation dated 23.01.2026 apprehending his false implication and specifically alleging a monetary demand of 18,00,000/- by ₹ Respondent No.2 and her associates, which clearly demonstrates that the dispute is of a pre-existing nature. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner has already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mungeli, vide order dated 04.07.2026, wherein the substantial delay in lodging the FIR was duly noticed. It is also submitted that the subsequent invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act during investigation, without any corresponding allegation in the FIR, does not by itself justify continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner. The material on record, according to learned counsel, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegations are inherently improbable and the criminal proceedings have been initiated afterthought with a view to harass and pressurize the Petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, along with the material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the 5 commission of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the disputed questions relating to the nature of the relationship, the alleged promise of marriage, and the delay in lodging the FIR require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has also been invoked during investigation. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. The allegations relate to the Petitioner having established physical relations with Respondent No.2 on the assurance of marriage and thereafter declining to marry her. The correctness of such allegations, the circumstances in which the relationship was established, the nature of the assurance allegedly given by the Petitioner and the defence set up by him are all matters requiring appreciation of evidence. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The principles governing such exercise have 6 subsequently been reiterated in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 25, wherein it has been emphasized that the High Court should not undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or conduct a mini- trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 8. In the present case, the Petitioner has principally relied upon the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the representation dated 23.01.2026 submitted prior thereto. However, the effect of such delay, as well as the evidentiary value of the said representation and the allegations regarding monetary demand, are matters which require appreciation of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar, Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2026, decided on 08.01.2026, has recently reiterated that delay in lodging a complaint, by itself, is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, and that whether such delay affects the credibility of the prosecution is a matter for the Trial Court. 9. So far as the subsequent invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the same is also a matter which can be examined on the basis of the material collected during investigation and the evidence led before the competent Court. At this stage, this Court would not be justified in undertaking a detailed examination of the factual allegations or the defence of the Petitioner. 7 10. Thus, applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure and C.S. Prasad, this Court finds that the present case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned FIR. The allegations raise disputed questions of fact which are appropriately to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to consideration of the present petition and shall not prejudice the Petitioner or Respondent No. 2 before the learned Trial Court, which shall decide the matter strictly on the basis of the evidence available on record and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra