1 CGHC010369322026 2026:CGHC:42278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2530 of 2026 Lokesh Humane S/o Late Vashudev Humane Aged About 42 Years R/o H/no. - 295 Ward No. 19 Kosarav Para Village - Manpur, Police Station - Manpur, District - Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (M.M.A.C.) (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Sangeeta Humane W/o Neeraj Humane Aged About 42 Years R/o Lakholi Naka, Near Hanuman Garage, Ward No. 35, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nihal Kashyap and Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocates. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 29.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, J 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), being aggrieved by the First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 217/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) on 23.05.2025, as well as the charge-sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 (C.G.), registered as Criminal Case No. 7110/2025, and also the entire proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2025, the complainant, along with her husband and Pappu Chandrakar, went to the house of her aunt-in-law to bring her mother-in-law. While the complainant was talking to her mother-in-law, the petitioner, who was already present there with an alleged intention to commit the offence, caught hold of her from behind and committed obscene acts with her while abusing her. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR against the petitioner. After investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, the concerned Police Station submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner on 12.08.2025 before the learned JMFC, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, registered the case as Criminal Case No. 7110/2025, and framed charges against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s mother had also lodged an FIR against the husband of the complainant, namely, Neeraj Humane, on 06.03.2025 at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, bearing Crime No. 116/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, and that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the said FIR. He would further submit that the allegations made in the present FIR against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He would also submit that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR against the petitioner, as the date of the alleged incident is stated to be 3 06.03.2025, whereas the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on 23.05.2025, allegedly as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner’s mother against the husband of the complainant. Thus, he would submit that the FIR, charge-sheet, as well as the entire proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that whether the FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner is a counterblast or not, and whether the lodging of the FIR in question suffers from delay or not, are matters of evidence which are 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 upon by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. He would further submit that this Court cannot conduct a fishing inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the evidence and material placed before the learned trial Court along with the charge-sheet. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present CRMP. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the plea that the FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner is a counterblast and that the FIR in question suffers from delay are matters relating to the defence 4 of the accused and involve disputed questions of fact and evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, we are of the considered view that the same are required to be adjudicated during the course of trial before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present CRMP is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his available defences before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall consider and decide the matter on its own merits, in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid directions and liberty, the present CRMP stands disposed of. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Magistrate concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Rajshekhar