1 CGHC010299592026 2026:CGHC:34690-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2078 of 2026 Hitesh Sahu S/o Kamta Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Deepesh Medical, Shyam Nagar, Behind Kapoor Hotel, Police Station Telibandha Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Civil Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ (Details Provided In A Closed Sealed Envelope) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, 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. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1/ State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.10 10:59:55 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Crime No. 675/2025 lodged on 25.12.2025 at Police Station -Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.), quash the Charge Sheet No. 50/2026, dated 14.02.2026 (Note: Date of chargesheet is wrongly mentioned in Annexure A/2) and quash the Criminal Proceeding i.e. Session Case No. 95/2026 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Raipur (C.G.) against the present petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 on which the cognizance was taken on 09.03.2026 (Annexure A/3), in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the prosecution case, the victim and the petitioner came into contact in the year 2023 and, owing to their acquaintance, developed a close relationship. They remained in a consensual relationship for about two years and were in regular contact with each other. It is alleged that during the subsistence of the relationship, the petitioner assured the victim that he would marry her and, relying upon the said assurance, she established physical relations with him on several occasions. Subsequently, when the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her, the victim lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Crime No. 675/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District 3 Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the statements of the victim, her family members and other witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The mobile phones of the petitioner and the victim were seized and sent for forensic examination and electronic evidence including call detail records and WhatsApp chats was collected. The petitioner was arrested during investigation and was subsequently enlarged on regular bail by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2026. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency filed Final Charge-sheet No. 50/2026 dated 14.02.2026 before the competent Court alleging commission of the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered Sessions Trial No. 95/2026, which is pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to personal differences arising out of a failed relationship. It is contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and that the FIR, the Final Report and the consequential Sessions Trial are 4 nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that the prosecution itself admits that the petitioner and the victim remained in a consensual relationship for nearly two years, which clearly demonstrates that the relationship was voluntary and negatives the allegation that the consent was obtained solely on account of deception. Learned counsel submits that there is neither any allegation nor any material to establish that the petitioner never intended to marry the victim from the very inception and, in the absence of such foundational facts, the essential ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not attracted. It is argued that a subsequent failure or refusal to solemnize marriage cannot by itself convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency has failed to collect any independent material to establish fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship and neither the WhatsApp chats, electronic evidence nor the statements of witnesses indicate that the petitioner made a false promise of marriage only to obtain the victim’s consent. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance mechanically without examining whether the material collected during investigation satisfies the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence. It is argued that criminal law cannot be invoked to punish every failed relationship or broken promise between consenting adults and that the prosecution case, at the highest, discloses a personal dispute and not the 5 commission of any cognizable criminal offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has cooperated throughout the investigation, was granted regular bail on 25.02.2026 and has scrupulously complied with all the conditions of bail, thereby demonstrating that there is no likelihood of misuse of liberty or interference with the administration of justice. It is lastly submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings despite the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offence would result in grave injustice and abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance is placed upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where a physical relationship is based on the free and conscious consent of two adults, every breach of promise to marry does not constitute a criminal offence unless it is established that the promise was false from its inception and was made only with the intention of obtaining such consent. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of the victim and other witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency disclose the commission of a cognizable offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that the petitioner induced the victim to establish physical relations by assuring her that he would marry her and subsequently refused to fulfil the said promise. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed, the charge sheet has already been filed and the 6 learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence after considering the material available on record. Learned State counsel argues that the truthfulness and otherwise of the allegations and the defence raised by the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. It is therefore submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and 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 the allegations made in the First Information Report, the statements recorded during the 9 course of investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Whether the promise of marriage was genuine or false from the very inception, whether the consent of the victim was obtained by deception and whether the petitioner had the requisite intention at the relevant point of time are all disputed questions of fact which can be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence led before the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the rival contentions while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The contentions raised by the petitioner constitute matters of defence which are required to be established during the course of trial. 12. This Court does not find that the present case falls within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, no case for quashing the impugned First Information Report, the charge sheet, the order taking cognizance or the consequential criminal proceedings is made out. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet