1 2026:CGHC:6142-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 361 of 2026 Ritik Sahu Alias Pintu S/o Late Jagdish Sahu, aged about 28 years R/o Village Bhadi Patelpara, Thana and Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Through S.H.O., P.S.- A J A K, Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. 2 - XYZ (Details of complainant are submitted in closed envelope) (Complainant in the instant crime) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.02.2026 1 Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and Consequently quash the F.I.R. no. 07/2025 registered with the Police Station AJAK Baikunthpur, District-Koriya (C.G.) by the Respondent No. 1 on 19.09.2025 for offence punishable under section 69, 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, further quash Chargesheet bearing no. 08/2025 dated 14.11.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) for offence punishable under section 69, 64, and 64(m) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and also quash the order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2025 registering criminal case bearing Special Criminal Case No. 26/2025, as well order dated 19.12.2025 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for offences punishable under section 64(1)(m) and section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the entire proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 26/2025 pending before the Learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District-Koriya (C.G.) against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid chargesheet, in the interest of justice. And/or any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3 3 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent No.2 on 19.09.2025 lodged a report against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 69, 64 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that 7 months back from the date of report the petitioner under false pretext of marriage was having sexual relations with the complainant for which she made complaint on 10.02.2025 and in the said case after the examination of complainant held on 27.05.2025 the mother of petitioner and petitioner had given in writing that petitioner will marry the complainant after which the petitioner daily comes to her rented house and made physical relations with her. On 12.09.2025 at 8.30 pm the petitioner again came to her house and under the pretext of marriage stating that after the court case would be over he will marry had forcefully without consent of complainant made physical relations with her which she informed to her husband and friend Monika. On 18.09.2025 in morning when her husband was present in her house alongwith children the petitioner came at 8.30 am in the morning and again starting coercing the complainant and hearing the noises, the landlord and other neighbors appeared and when her husband asked the petitioner when he is going to marry the complainant, the petitioner had refused stating he belongs to Sahu Caste and complainant is of Oraon Caste he will not marry her and as she had sent him to jail he will only make physical relations with her. On the aforesaid allegations the present FIR was again 4 registered by police bearing Crime No. 7/2025 and subsequently after investigation chargesheet has also been filed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS before this Court bearing CRMP No. 34 of 2026 charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, however when the matter came up for hearing on 08.01.2026 by that time since charges were already framed, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy. Hence, this petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and is an abuse of the process of law. The allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are based on a consensual relationship between two adults, which has been sought to be given a criminal colour after differences arose between the parties. He further argued that the allegation that consent was obtained on a false pretext of marriage is vague, omnibus, and unsupported by any cogent material demonstrating that, at the inception itself, the petitioner had no intention to marry the complainant. Mere subsequent refusal to marry, even if assumed, does not ipso facto constitute an offence under Sections 69 or 64 of the BNS, 2023. It is further submitted that the conduct of the complainant herself belies the prosecution story. Despite an earlier complaint dated 10.02.2025 and alleged examination on 27.05.2025, the complainant admittedly continued to maintain relations with the petitioner thereafter. The alleged written 5 assurance by the petitioner and his mother, even if assumed to be true, cannot automatically convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence. The subsequent allegations of forcible physical relations are contradicted by the surrounding circumstances, including the admitted prior intimacy and absence of any immediate medical or independent corroborative evidence. The invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also wholly misconceived, as there is no material to suggest that the alleged acts were committed on account of the complainant’s caste or with the requisite mens rea contemplated under the Act. It is submitted that in the absence of a prima facie case and considering the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding consensual relationships and false implication, the petitioner prays that the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance be quashed in the interest of justice. 5 On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the prosecution case clearly discloses the commission of serious and cognizable offences, warranting a full-fledged trial. The allegations made by respondent No.2 are not of a mere consensual relationship but of repeated sexual exploitation by the petitioner under a false promise of marriage. The complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner induced her into a physical relationship by assuring marriage and, even after an earlier complaint and intervention, continued to exploit her by reiterating the same false promise. The 6 subsequent refusal to marry, coupled with the petitioner’s conduct and statements, prima facie establishes that the promise was never genuine and was made only to secure sexual favours, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 69 and 64 of the BNS, 2023. It is further submitted that the allegations relating to the incident dated 12.09.2025 specifically disclose forcible sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant, which is supported by her prompt disclosure to her husband and friend. Additionally, the incident dated 18.09.2025, witnessed by the complainant’s husband, landlord, and neighbours, clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s refusal to marry the complainant on the ground of caste and his assertion that he would only continue physical relations with her. Such statements and conduct, at this prima facie stage, attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the humiliation, exploitation, and offence were committed against the complainant, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, knowing fully well her caste status. He further submits that the statements of the prosecutrix, witnesses, and other materials collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case, and the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation. The framing of charges itself indicates that the learned Trial Court found sufficient grounds to proceed. Therefore, the petition is premature and misconceived, and any interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed and the trial be allowed to proceed in 7 accordance with law. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the materials placed on record. 7 The FIR and the statements recorded during investigation prima facie disclose that the petitioner repeatedly established physical relations with the complainant on the assurance of marriage and continued to do so even after an earlier complaint and intervention. The allegations further indicate that on 12.09.2025 the petitioner had forcible physical relations with the complainant without her consent and that on 18.09.2025 he openly refused to marry her on the ground of caste, despite knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. These allegations, if taken at face value, clearly constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged and cannot be brushed aside as a mere breach of promise or a consensual relationship at this stage. 8 It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini- trial or evaluate the probative value of the evidence. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, the intention of the petitioner at the inception of the relationship, and the applicability of the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and can only be decided during trial. Since the charge-sheet has been filed after 8 due investigation and charges have already been framed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. 9 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, which are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra