1 2026:CGHC:11997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 735 of 2026 Shriram S/o Kripal Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Jemra Lafa Pali, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Head Officer, Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Xyz W/o Xyz, R/o Xyz (Details Of The Complainant Has Been Provided In The Attested Closed Envelop) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.16 10:55:04 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. II. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 415/2025 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, dated 11.12.2025 filed under section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. III. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet bearing Challan/Chargesheet no. 11/2026 under section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 dated 05.02.2026. IV. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and has registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 180/2026 against the Petitioner. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioner.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that it has been alleged that the complainant, for the purpose of pursuing her B.A. studies at Hardi 3 Bazar College, shifted to her grandmother’s house in the year 2021. During this period, she came into contact with the present petitioner through her brother and, with the passage of time, their acquaintance allegedly developed into a love relationship. It is further alleged that in November 2023, the petitioner, on the false pretext of marriage, took the complainant to Ganesh Lodge at Katghora and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution has also alleged that the petitioner continued to establish physical relations with the complainant against her will till the year 2025 and thereafter refused to marry her. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR bearing Crime No. 415/2025 dated 11.12.2025 was registered at Police Station Katghora against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2026, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet bearing Challan No. 11/2026 dated 05.02.2026 was filed for the aforesaid offence, cognizance whereof was taken on 06.02.2026 in Criminal Case No. 180/2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner thereafter preferred Bail Application No. 85/2026 before the learned First Additional Sessions Court, Katghora, and was granted bail on 09.02.2026. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the charge-sheet are false, baseless, and devoid of any cogent evidence, and that continuation of the criminal 4 proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law, as no offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC is made out against him, and therefore the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations levelled in the FIR and reiterated in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out against the present petitioner. It is submitted that there is no substantial or cogent evidence on record to demonstrate the involvement of the petitioner in any alleged act of forcible sexual intercourse, and the materials collected during investigation fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. It is further submitted that the factual matrix itself reveals that the petitioner and the complainant were well acquainted for several years and were admittedly in a consensual love relationship for a prolonged period of time, and therefore a failed or soured relationship cannot be given a criminal colour so as to attract the rigours of a grave penal provision. Learned counsel further submits that there exists unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which is contrary to normal human conduct and casts serious doubt on the veracity and genuineness of the allegations, particularly when the medical examination report does not indicate any external or internal 5 injuries suggestive of forceful sexual assault. It is also argued that the FIR appears to have been registered in a mechanical and hasty manner without any preliminary inquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations, thereby resulting in misuse of the criminal justice machinery. It is thus contended that the averments made in the FIR are vague, bald and conclusory in nature and do not disclose the necessary particulars to constitute the alleged offence, and continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to gross abuse of the process of law and harassment of the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR and supported by the statements of the victim and other material collected during the course of investigation clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable and serious offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is contended that at the stage of considering a petition for quashment, this Court is not required to meticulously examine the probative value or sufficiency of the evidence, and if the allegations made in the FIR and charge-sheet prima facie constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Learned State counsel further submits that the question as to whether the physical relationship between the parties was consensual or 6 obtained on false promise of marriage, as well as the issue of delay in lodging the FIR or absence of injuries in the medical report, are all matters of evidence which can only be properly appreciated during the course of trial and not at the threshold stage. It is thus argued that the investigation has culminated in filing of a charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance, and therefore interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR itself clearly discloses specific, categorical and serious allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he had established physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage and continued to do so on several occasions at different places, including at Ganesh Lodge, Katghora, despite her resistance, and thereafter refused to marry her. It is contended that the written complaint submitted by the victim contains detailed narration of the circumstances in which she came in contact with the petitioner, the inducement extended by him, and the alleged acts of repeated sexual intercourse committed by him over a period of time, thereby prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned State counsel further submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of the said written complaint after due compliance of procedural 7 requirements and the same cannot be termed as mechanical or without application of mind at this stage. It is also argued that the veracity, reliability and evidentiary value of the allegations made by the victim are matters to be tested during trial through cross- examination and appreciation of evidence, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be exercised to prematurely terminate a lawful prosecution involving serious allegations of sexual exploitation. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded during the course of investigation prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, including the nature of relationship between the parties, alleged consent, delay in lodging the FIR, or the evidentiary value of the medical report, as these are matters which can only be properly appreciated during the course of trial. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the 8 process of law. In the present case, the FIR and the charge-sheet contain specific allegations attracting the ingredients of the offence alleged, and therefore this Court does not find any ground to interfere at this threshold stage. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet