1 2026:CGHC:4554-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 249 of 2026 Deepak Dinkar S/o Tulsiram Dinkar Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 960 / 85 Kelo Vihar Colony, Chakradharnagar Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - X Y Z (As Per The Guideline Of Supreme Court The Victim / Complainant Name, Age And Other Details Are Not Mentioned) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.29 11:10:17 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs:- “The petitioner therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow instant petition and quash the Criminal Case No. RCC 45100/2025 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner in Crime No. 1321/2025 registered in Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) in the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, charge sheet dated 06.12.2025 filed against the petitioner under Section 69 of BNS as well as the order of taking cognizance dated 22.12.2025 by the trial court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the present criminal proceedings are a clear abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed at the threshold. It is submitted that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, no prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. The admitted case of the prosecutrix herself is that she and the petitioner were in a prolonged love relationship, were well acquainted with each other’s families, travelled together to various religious and tourist places, and stayed together with mutual consent. The relationship between the parties was voluntary and consensual. It is further submitted that the allegation of sexual intercourse on the false 3 promise of marriage is wholly unsustainable in law. There is no allegation or material to show that, at the inception of the relationship, the petitioner had any dishonest intention or mens rea to deceive the prosecutrix. On the contrary, the WhatsApp conversations placed on record clearly demonstrate mutual affection, voluntary consent, and subsequent misunderstanding owing to the petitioner’s job-related stress and transfer. The prosecutrix herself, in the conversations, expressed that she had no objection if the petitioner settled his life by marrying someone else. 4. Learned counsel submits that the medical examination does not support the prosecution case, as the doctor has opined that no definite opinion regarding rape can be given. There is no corroborative medical or forensic evidence to substantiate the allegation. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is dated 19.08.2025, whereas the written complaint was made only on 04.11.2025, after an unexplained delay of more than two months. Such inordinate and unexplained delay itself creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations and indicates that the complaint is an afterthought arising out of a failed relationship. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioner to perform marriage, which is impermissible under criminal law. The petitioner is a bachelor, presently on regular bail, and continuation 4 of the trial would cause irreparable damage to his reputation, liberty, and future career. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court may kindly exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR, charge-sheet, and material collected during investigation clearly disclose commission of a cognizable offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was subjected to physical relations on the false assurance of marriage, and when the petitioner ultimately refused to marry her, she was constrained to lodge the complaint. He further submits that at the stage of quashing, this Court is not required to appreciate evidence or conduct a mini trial. The statements of the prosecutrix recorded under the BNSS consistently support the prosecution case, and the issue of consent, intention, and promise of marriage are matters of trial, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. It is submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained, as the prosecutrix was 5 under emotional distress and was hopeful that the petitioner would honour his promise of marriage. Mere delay in itself does not vitiate the prosecution case. 8. Learned State counsel further submits that medical evidence is only corroborative in nature, and absence of a definite medical opinion does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when the version of the prosecutrix is consistent and trustworthy. It is further argued that the petitioner induced the prosecutrix to submit to physical relations by assuring marriage and later resiled from the promise, which attracts the ingredients of the alleged offence. Therefore, the charge-sheet having been filed and cognizance having been taken by the competent court, interference at this stage would be wholly unwarranted. Hence, learned State counsel submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 10. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint alleging that she came in contact with the accused through Satnami Samaj Marriage Bureau and thereafter they were in regular telephonic contact. It is alleged that on 07.05.2025 the accused, along with his father, visited the house of the prosecutrix to fix the marriage, pursuant to which members of the prosecutrix’s family visited the house of the 6 accused at Raigarh and the marriage was finalized between the families. Thereafter, the accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and both of them used to move together. 11. It is further alleged that on 19.08.2025, the accused took the prosecutrix to Room No.109 of Hotel Eagle, Supela, stating that their marriage had already been finalized, and established physical relations with her. The hotel register was seized during investigation. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix asked the accused on 24.08.2025 to fix the date of marriage, he refused to marry her, upon which the present report was lodged. 12. During investigation, statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and samples were sent for forensic examination. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was recorded. The accused was arrested during investigation and medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged offence, whereafter cognizance was taken by the competent Court. 13. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. 7 14. From the charge-sheet and statements collected during investigation, it prima facie emerges that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was established on the assurance of marriage, which admittedly did not materialize. Whether the promise of marriage was false from inception, whether it was made with dishonest intention, and whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by such assurance are all questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. It is a settled principle of law that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or evaluate the credibility of evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence. In the present case, the contents of the FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, and other materials collected during investigation do prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence. 16. The contention of the petitioner that the relationship was consensual and that the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case cannot be accepted at this stage. The explanation offered by the prosecutrix regarding delay, namely 8 that she was hopeful of marriage and was under emotional distress, cannot be said to be implausible so as to warrant interference by this Court. The issue of consent and delay are matters to be examined during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 17. Likewise, the submission regarding absence of definite medical opinion does not advance the petitioner’s case at this stage, as medical evidence is merely corroborative in nature. The sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain prosecution, and the effect of medical evidence is to be assessed by the Trial Court during appreciation of evidence. 18. The plea that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive to compel marriage also involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition seeking quashing of FIR and charge-sheet. At this juncture, the Court does not find the allegations to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that an offence has been committed. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that sufficient prima facie material exists against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution, which is impermissible in law. 9 20. Accordingly, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Needless to observe that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu