1 CGHC010306012026 2026:CGHC:36491-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 474 of 2026 Uday Raj Gayakwad S/o Khoju Ram Gayakwad Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill. Pendritalab (N), P.S.- Lormi, Dist.- Mungeli, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Superintendent of Police Dist.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Station House Officer P.S.- Ganj, Dist. - Raipur, C.G. 3 - A.B.C. D/o D.E.F. Aged About 26 Years R/o Anand Nagar, Uslapur, P.S. - Sakri, Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. , Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Ganj, Dist. - Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 & 2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.18 10:20:46 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for entire records pursuant to crime number 194/2026 at P.S. Ganj, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.). 10.2 Allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR bearing crime no. 194/at P.S. Ganj, Dist.-Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioner under Section 69, 296 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a salaried professional against whom, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Respondent No.3/victim on 17.06.2026, FIR No.03/2026 was initially registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur for offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the petitioner had established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage on 26.12.2025. During investigation, it was found that the alleged place of occurrence, i.e. Government Quarter, Jail Campus, G-Type, Mekahara, Raipur, fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ganj, District Raipur and, accordingly, 3 the matter was transferred, whereupon FIR No.194/2026 came to be registered on 23.06.2026. As per the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, the petitioner and the victim came into contact through social media in December, 2023 and thereafter remained in communication, and it is alleged that on 26.12.2025, the petitioner called the victim to his Government Quarter on the pretext of introducing her to his parents, administered an intoxicating substance in water and thereafter established physical relations with her without her consent on the false promise of marriage. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR are false, concocted and have been made with an ulterior motive to implicate and harass him. The petitioner submits that, even prior to registration of the FIR, he had apprehended that the victim was attempting to falsely implicate him and was interfering with his personal and matrimonial life by extending threats, using different identities and allegedly making attempts to sabotage his proposed matrimonial alliances. According to the petitioner, on account of such conduct, he had already submitted a detailed pre-emptive legal representation dated 14.06.2026 to the competent police authorities, requesting preservation and verification of relevant electronic evidence. It is further the case of the petitioner that the FIR itself was lodged after a considerable delay of about six months from the alleged incident dated 26.12.2025. The petitioner also places reliance upon various 4 complaints and documents concerning the alleged conduct of Respondent No.3, including complaints relating to interference with his proposed marriages and alleged cyber harassment/extortion, as well as the material collected by him prior to registration of the present FIR. 5. It is further the case of the petitioner that immediately after registration of the impugned FIR, he approached this Court by filing MCRCA No.1147/2026 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.07.2026. The petitioner submits that the relationship, if any, between the parties was consensual and that the allegations of intoxication, absence of consent and false promise of marriage have subsequently been introduced with a view to give a criminal colour to the dispute between the parties. According to the petitioner, the surrounding circumstances, including the prior conduct complained of by him, the delay in lodging the FIR and the material already available on record, demonstrate that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive. It is, therefore, contended that continuation of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.194/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is a product of mala fide and an afterthought, and that the 5 allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is submitted that the victim and the petitioner were acquainted with each other since December, 2023 and remained in contact for a considerable period, whereas the alleged incident is dated 26.12.2025 and the FIR came to be lodged only on 17.06.2026, after an unexplained delay of nearly six months. Though the delay has been sought to be explained on the ground of social stigma, according to learned counsel, the surrounding circumstances clearly indicate that the criminal proceedings were initiated only after the petitioner declined to marry the victim. It is further submitted that there is no material in the FIR to establish that, at the inception itself, the petitioner had made a promise of marriage with a dishonest intention not to fulfil it, which is essential for attracting Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Mere subsequent refusal to marry, according to learned counsel, cannot by itself constitute the offence alleged. The allegations under Sections 296 and 351(3) of the BNS are also stated to be vague and ancillary, having been introduced to give a criminal colour to a personal dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are substantial circumstances demonstrating that the victim had, even prior to registration of the present FIR, been interfering with the petitioner’s personal and matrimonial life and had allegedly threatened him with criminal implication and defamation. It is submitted that the petitioner had already submitted a detailed pre- 6 emptive representation dated 14.06.2026 before the police authorities, i.e. prior to registration of the impugned FIR, apprehending his false implication. Learned counsel refers to the complaints made by persons including Sherdas Bhaskar, Smita Koshle and Dr. Gyandas Gendle concerning alleged impersonation, cyber harassment and interference with matrimonial alliances, as well as the FIR lodged by Ravindra Kumar against the victim, and the complaint allegedly submitted by her own friend regarding threats to give false evidence against the petitioner. It is submitted that these materials, coupled with the considerable delay in lodging the FIR and the circumstances in which the complaint came to be made, demonstrate a pattern of conduct and a clear ulterior motive to pressurise the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in MCRCA No.1147 of 2026 vide order dated 22.07.2026, had already taken note of the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS had not been recorded. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, particularly when the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged and the prosecution appears to be attended with mala fide and an ulterior motive arising out of a private dispute. It is submitted that the extraordinary/inherent 7 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be exercised where the allegations do not constitute an offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or are instituted with a view to wreak vengeance. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that FIR No.194/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in the interest of justice. 9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the illustrative categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, including where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a specific written complaint made by the victim alleging that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false promise of 8 marriage and, therefore, the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 69, 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the allegations relating to the alleged intoxicating substance, absence of consent and subsequent refusal to marry are matters requiring investigation and cannot be disbelieved at the threshold. Learned State counsel would further submit that the delay in lodging the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the prosecution, particularly when the victim has furnished an explanation for the delay. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged conduct of the victim, her use of different identities, previous complaints and interference with his matrimonial alliances involves disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing of the FIR. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the documents and allegations relied upon by the petitioner require verification during investigation and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of his innocence at this stage. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner does not amount to a finding on the merits of the prosecution case and does not preclude the investigating agency from conducting a fair and complete investigation. According to learned State counsel, the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction are well settled and such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where 9 the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences. It is, therefore, submitted that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents and have perused the material available on record with due circumspection. 13. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the allegations contained in FIR No.194/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, disclose such a case as would warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The parameters governing exercise of such jurisdiction are well settled. The High Court, while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, is not required to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, nor is it permissible to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the defence of the accused. At the same time, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the prosecution is 10 manifestly attended with mala fide or falls within the recognised exceptional categories, interference may be justified. The power, however, is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. 14. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner and the victim came into contact through social media in December, 2023 and thereafter remained in communication; that the petitioner expressed his intention to marry her; that on 26.12.2025 he called her to his Government Quarter situated at Jail Campus, Mekahara, Raipur, on the pretext of introducing her to his parents; that he administered an intoxicating substance in water; and that thereafter he established physical relations with her without her consent on the assurance of marriage. It is further alleged that when the victim subsequently insisted upon marriage, the petitioner refused and also abused and intimidated her. These allegations, at this preliminary stage, cannot be said to be so inherently absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that an offence requiring investigation is disclosed. In particular, Section 69 of the BNS creates a distinct statutory offence where sexual intercourse is alleged to have been obtained by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without intention of fulfilling the same. Whether the alleged promise was false from its inception, whether the petitioner possessed the requisite dishonest intention at the relevant time, 11 whether the victim's consent was obtained by deception and whether the allegation regarding administration of an intoxicating substance is true are matters which necessarily require investigation and appreciation of evidence. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties were acquainted with each other for a considerable period and that the relationship was consensual cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a conclusive defence. The existence of a prior relationship, by itself, does not completely rule out the possibility that a particular physical relationship was subsequently induced by a false promise or deceitful means. Equally, the petitioner's contention that there was no dishonest intention from the inception is a matter to be established from the surrounding circumstances and evidence collected during investigation. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the distinction between a genuine promise to marry and a false promise made without intention of fulfilment, has consistently held that the crucial question is whether the promise was false from its very inception and whether it had a direct bearing upon the woman's decision to enter into the physical relationship. Such determination ordinarily requires appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively undertaken merely on the basis of the accused's defence at the stage of quashing. 16. In this regard, the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 12 in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, and that where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed in accordance with law. 17. So far as the alleged delay of about six months in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the FIR. The victim has sought to explain the delay by referring to social stigma and apprehension of public shame. Whether such explanation is satisfactory, whether the delay affects the credibility of the allegations and what inference, if any, is to be drawn therefrom are matters which may be examined on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial. At the stage of quashing, this Court cannot weigh the explanation furnished by the victim against the defence version and record a finding regarding its truthfulness. 18. Much emphasis has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the various complaints allegedly made against the victim by third parties, the allegations of her having used different identities, the alleged attempts to interfere with the petitioner's matrimonial alliances, the complaint of one Ravindra Kumar, the 13 complaint allegedly made by the friend of the victim and the pre- emptive representation dated 14.06.2026 submitted by the petitioner. These materials may constitute matters of defence and may be relevant for the petitioner during the course of investigation or trial; however, at this stage, this Court cannot adjudicate the genuineness, authorship, evidentiary value or inter se connection of such documents. More particularly, the allegations contained in complaints lodged by third parties against the victim cannot, without their proof and proper evidentiary evaluation, be treated as establishing that the present FIR is false or malicious. 19. The fact that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.06.2026, prior to registration of the FIR, may undoubtedly be a circumstance which the investigating agency is required to examine along with all other relevant material. However, the mere existence of such a representation does not, by itself, establish the falsity of the subsequent complaint. Similarly, the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court in MCRCA No.1147/2026 vide order dated 22.07.2026 cannot be construed as a determination of the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR. An order granting bail operates in the context of personal liberty and the parameters applicable to such consideration and cannot be treated as an adjudication upon the merits of the prosecution case. 14 20. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner is stated to be working as an Assistant Jail Superintendent and that continuation of criminal proceedings may have consequences upon his service, reputation and family life. Nevertheless, such consequences, however serious, cannot by themselves constitute a ground for quashing an FIR where the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences. The personal and professional status of an accused cannot confer immunity from investigation, nor can the apprehended consequences of prosecution substitute for the statutory process of investigation and trial. 21. On a cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR, we are unable to accept the submission that the present case falls within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The FIR specifically attributes acts to the petitioner which, if ultimately established by legally admissible evidence, may constitute offences under the provisions invoked therein. The defence of the petitioner that the relationship was consensual, that there was no false promise from the inception, that the FIR is motivated, and that the victim has a history of allegedly harassing other persons are all matters which require factual determination. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot undertake such an adjudicatory exercise. 15 22. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Bhajan Lal (supra) is well founded insofar as the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction are concerned. However, the said decision itself makes it clear that the illustrative categories are not rigid or inflexible and that the power is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, having regard to the specific allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be held at this stage that the allegations do not disclose any offence or that they are so absurd and inherently improbable as to warrant termination of the investigation at its inception. 23. Rather, the present case falls within the principle reiterated by the Supreme Court that where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the investigating agency should ordinarily be permitted to complete the investigation and the High Court should refrain from evaluating the defence of the accused or weighing the evidence at the threshold. 24. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court cautioned against conducting a mini-trial while exercising the power of quashing and emphasised that the allegations in the FIR are required to be considered as they stand, without embarking upon an enquiry into their reliability or genuineness at the inception. The same approach assumes greater significance in the present matter because the investigation is at a stage 16 where the rival versions of the parties and the electronic and other materials relied upon by both sides are yet to be tested. 25. It is also relevant that the allegations concern an incident dated 26.12.2025 and the FIR came to be registered on 23.06.2026 after the initial registration at Police Station Sakri and subsequent transfer to Police Station Ganj on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The delay and the circumstances surrounding registration may undoubtedly be examined by the investigating agency. However, they do not erase the specific allegations made by the victim regarding the manner in which the alleged physical relationship was established. The Court cannot, merely because there is a delay or because the petitioner has placed certain counter-material on record, conclude that the prosecution is inherently improbable. 26. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present matter requires investigation into the allegations made in the FIR. Whether the petitioner had made a genuine promise to marry or a false promise without any intention of fulfilling the same; whether the victim voluntarily consented to the physical relationship; whether any intoxicating substance was administered to her; whether the allegations of intimidation are true; and whether the various documents and allegations relied upon by the petitioner establish mala fide on the part of the victim are all questions which cannot be satisfactorily determined in the present 17 proceedings. Any attempt by this Court to decide these issues at this stage would amount to appreciation of disputed facts and conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible in exercise of the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. 27. Consequently, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the law governing exercise of jurisdiction for quashing of an FIR, we find no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with FIR No.194/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 69, 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations made therein, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose cognizable offences and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The investigation must be permitted to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, which are confined solely to the consideration of the present petition. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The prayer for quashing FIR No.194/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is rejected. 29. It is, however, made clear that the observations contained in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence of the petitioner. The 18 investigating agency shall conduct the investigation fairly, objectively and strictly in accordance with law, and shall consider all relevant material produced by either side. 30. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu