1 2026:CGHC:15257-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 919 of 2026 Jagrit Sahu S/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Gayatri Mandir Ramnagar Muktidham Supela, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Xyz Nil (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. T. K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/ respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.04 13:18:53 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this CRMP and quash FIR no. 69/2026 dated 01.02.2026 offences are registered under section 69 of IPC (ANNEXURE P/1) and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which was duly added during the course of Investigation, in the interest of justice. 2. It is therefore prayed that respondent no. 01 was directed to act upon the complaint made by the present petitioner on 27.01.2026 and investigate the matter fairly and proceed in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that The present case arises from a complaint lodged by the complainant at Police Station Jamul alleging that she came into contact with the petitioner, Jagrit Sahu, on 05.08.2022 during her employment, whereupon he proposed marriage and, on the pretext of such promise, allegedly established physical relations with her against her will at different rented accommodations over a prolonged period. It is alleged that the petitioner repeatedly subjected her to sexual relations on false assurance of marriage until 24.12.2025, and later she discovered that his marriage was fixed for 08.02.2026, leading to registration of Crime No. 69/2025 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with subsequent addition of Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act during investigation. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail was initially rejected by the Special Court on 3 06.02.2026, however, he was later granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 18.03.2026. The petitioner contends that he has no criminal antecedents and that the allegations are false, fabricated, and devoid of evidence, having been made with ulterior motives. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned FIR is wholly arbitrary, malicious, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, having been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass and extort money from the petitioner. The petitioner and the complainant were merely acquainted through professional interaction at a marriage function, and it was the complainant who approached the petitioner for assistance in securing rented accommodation, which was duly provided without any ulterior intent. It is further submitted that the petitioner never made any promise of marriage, nor was there any relationship as alleged; rather, the complainant, being a major, independent, and well-aware individual, attempted to initiate a relationship which the petitioner declined. The conduct of the complainant clearly reflects mala fide intent, as she had earlier lodged a similar FIR against another person, Mukesh Sonkar, on identical allegations, thereby indicating a pattern of false implication. Furthermore, upon learning of the petitioner’s impending marriage, the complainant started blackmailing him and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, which compelled the petitioner to lodge a prior complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Durg. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, are not made out, as there is no prima facie evidence of rape on false promise of marriage or any caste-based offence. Moreover, there is an unexplained delay in 4 lodging the FIR, and no allegation exists to show that from the very inception the petitioner had any fraudulent intent, thereby rendering the entire prosecution case baseless, untenable, and liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that the FIR and material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable and serious offences. The allegations made by the complainant specifically indicate that the petitioner, on the false pretext of marriage, established repeated physical relations with her over a prolonged period, thereby attracting the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and during the course of investigation, the provisions of the SC/ST Act were also rightly invoked based on the caste status of the victim. It is a settled principle that where the FIR and charge-sheet disclose ingredients of the alleged offences, criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold, that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the 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 5 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 528 of BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of the impugned FIR (Annexure-P/1), it is evident that the complainant has made specific, detailed, and consistent allegations against the accused that he established physical relations with her on multiple occasions over a prolonged period on the false pretext of marriage, including instances of alleged force despite her resistance. The FIR discloses that the accused initially induced the complainant into a relationship by promising marriage, thereafter took her to rented 6 accommodations at different places, and continued to engage in physical relations against her will, culminating in the last alleged incident dated 24.12.2025. It is further alleged that the complainant came to know about the accused’s impending marriage with another woman in February 2026, which led her to lodge the complaint. The allegations, as stated in the FIR, prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, warranting registration of the crime and investigation, and at this stage, the veracity of the allegations is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated conclusively. 10. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that no offence prima facie is disclosed against the petitioner in the FIR as there is allegation of rape on the pretext of marriage of the complainant and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika