1 CGHC010267942026 2026:CGHC:34691-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2079 of 2026 Yogendra Dhirhe S/o Balbhadra Dhirhe Aged About 28 Years (Balmadu Wrongly Mentioned In Annexure- P/1 And Annexure-P/2) R/o Village- Kusmul, P.S. Dabhra, District- Sakti, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2 - Xyz N I L ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1/ State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.10 10:59:54 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita 2023 filed by the petitioner. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 171/2026, registered on 01.02.2026 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. III. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheets filed on 15.04.2026 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur u/s 69, 296, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023. IV. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire Criminal Proceeding of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 148/2026, where the matter was fixed on 27.07.2026 for submit the trial schedule along with the list of evidence. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2-victim on 01.02.2026 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Crime No.171/2026 was registered against 3 the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is alleged that in June, 2025, the victim came in contact with the petitioner through Instagram and, upon his repeated friend requests and representation that both belonged to the same caste, she accepted his request. Thereafter, both started interacting regularly and, during the course of their acquaintance, the petitioner allegedly proposed marriage to her. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2025, the petitioner called the victim to Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, booked a room in a hotel and established physical relations with her for two days on the promise of marriage, as a result of which she became pregnant. According to the victim, when she informed the petitioner about the pregnancy, he allegedly administered abortion pills causing miscarriage and subsequently refused to marry her. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the aforementioned FIR came to be registered and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No.401/2026. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present petition contending that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge- sheet are false, baseless and unsupported by any cogent 4 material. The victim is a major and the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only because the petitioner declined to marry the victim. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings be quashed as being an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are accepted in their entirety, no offence under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that there is no cogent or substantial evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences and that the FIR as well as the charge-sheet fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 is a major lady aged about 26 years and that the relationship between the parties was consensual. It is argued that the FIR came to be lodged only after the petitioner declined to marry the victim and refused to accede to her alleged demand of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which, according to the petitioner, is evident from the Instagram chats placed on record. It is further submitted that, apprehending false implication, the petitioner had already submitted a written complaint dated 01.01.2026 before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, alleging that the victim was threatening to implicate him in a false rape case. Learned counsel also points out that 5 although the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 25.10.2025, the FIR was lodged only on 01.02.2026 without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is lastly contended that the medical examination of the victim did not reveal any external or internal injuries, rupture of the hymen or any signs suggestive of force or violence and, therefore, the medical evidence does not support the allegations levelled in the FIR. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is argued that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law and the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of offences under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that the statements of the victim and other witnesses recorded during investigation, coupled with the material collected by the investigating agency, constitute sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner. It is further submitted that, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court, upon due consideration of the material available on record, has already framed charges against the petitioner. The order framing charges has not been challenged in the present petition and, therefore, the same has attained finality. Learned State counsel further submits that the 6 trial has already commenced and the matter is fixed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 07.10.2026. It is argued that the contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the relationship between the parties and the appreciation of evidence, which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial and not in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl 7 Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only 8 required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 10. 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. 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. 11. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, and upon considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of 9 inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. The allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The statements of the victim and other witnesses recorded during investigation, along with the material collected by the investigating agency, constitute sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the consensual nature of the relationship, delay in lodging the FIR, alleged demand of money by the victim, the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police prior to registration of the FIR, and the medical evidence are all matters of defence involving disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS and are required to be tested during the course of trial. 12. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial to determine the veracity of the rival claims. It is also pertinent to note that, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner, which order has not been assailed in the present petition. The matter is now fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 07.10.2026. In view of the settled legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court 10 does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. 13. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet