1 CGHC010344832026 2026:CGHC:41337-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2491 of 2026 Santoshi Dakua W/o Shekhar Kumar Dakua Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig-195, Dindayal Colony, Mangla, Thana Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Sirgitti, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 23.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of Charge-sheet No. 347/2026 dated 04.08.2026 arising out of FIR No. 402/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 34(2)(m), 60, 351(3) and 35(5) of the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom and pending before the learned trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the victim lodged a written report alleging that his daughter, aged about 15 years and a student of Saint Xavier School, Bannan Chowk, Bilaspur, was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused on 14.12.2025. After the incident, the victim disclosed the alleged incident to the present petitioner, who was working as the Principal of the said school, as well as to two other teachers, however, no action was allegedly taken by them. Thereafter, upon the victim informing the alleged incident to her sister, the same came to the knowledge of her father, who lodged the report before Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, leading to registration of FIR No. 402/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 34(2)(m), 60, 351(3) and 35(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 14.12.2025, whereas, the main accused, Rahul Bangaru, had already resigned from the school on 09.07.2025, i.e. more than five months prior to the alleged occurrence. Thus, on the date of the alleged incident, the 3 main accused was no longer associated with the institution or under the administrative control or supervision of the petitioner, and therefore, Section 21 of the POCSO Act is not attracted. He would further submit that the victim did not report the incident to the petitioner after its occurrence and that the alleged offence was committed beyond the vicinity of the school. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged violation of Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the registration of the FIR as well as the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet are also an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he pray for quashing of the FIR and the consequential charge-sheet. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that whether the registration was effected within six months or not is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. She would further submit that whether or not the victim had informed the petitioner is also a matter which is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial before the learned trial Court. Thus, all the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. She would further submit that this Court cannot conduct a fishing 4 inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the evidence and material placed before the learned trial Court along with the charge-sheet. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the present CRMP. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the main accused, Rahul Bangaru, had tendered his resignation on 09.07.2025, i.e., about six months prior to the alleged occurrence, and, he was no longer under the control or supervision of the petitioner, as such, offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act is not attracted against the petitioner which is defence of the accused and matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while hearing the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. Similarly, the submission that the victim had informed the petitioner about the alleged incident when she had visited the institution to collect her T.C., is also a disputed question of fact which can be considered by the trial Court during the trial and this Court cannot examine the same while hearing the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition does not call for interference at this stage. However, petitioner is at liberty to raise all the aforesaid pleas, including the plea regarding the resignation of the main accused, 5 as well as all other available grounds, before the learned trial Court. It is needless to say that the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and on the basis of the evidence brought on record. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court, therefore, he prays for exemption from further personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. 9. In view of the above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner intends to seek exemption from personal appearance for the entire duration of the proceedings, he may move an appropriate application under Section 205 of the CrPC (now corresponding to Section 228 of the BNSS), which shall be considered and decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant CRMP stands disposed off. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Akhil