1 2026:CGHC:17330-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1069 of 2026 Nashimuddin S/o. Azizuddin Aged About 47 Years R/o. Ward No. 29, Vrinda Nagar,camp 1, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Child Marriage Prohibition Officer Bhatagaon, Dharsiva-I, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - ABC (Details Of Respondent No. 04 Is Submitted In A Sealed Cover) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Ms.Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.20 11:31:49 +0530 2 appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the order dated 24-03-26 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special Court, Raipur (C.G), in Special Criminal Case no. 20/2026 whereby the charges has been framed against the petitioners under section 4,17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Order dated 13-03-26 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special Court 'POCSO', Raipur (C.G), in at Special Criminal Case по. 20/2026 whereby petitioners application for discharge under section whereby 250 of the Bhatriya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 has been rejected; For quashment of First Information Report dated 11-12-25 bearing F.1.R no.1002/2025 registered Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G) under section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4,6 of the Protection of children from sexual Offences, 2012 and also the chargesheet dated 09-01-26 bearing no. 80/2026 filed by the police of police station Tikrapara, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G) under section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4,6 of the Protection of children 3 from sexual Offences, 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G); and to quash the criminal proceeding pending before Additional Session Judge. 1st Fast Tract Special Court "POCSO' Raipur (C.G) in Case No. 20/2026 between "State of C.G vs Nasimuddin and Ors", in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that on 11.12.2025, information was received from Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, regarding the alleged child marriage of Respondent No. 4 with co-accused Ajnan Babu, stated to have been solemnized on 21.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3, the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report recommending registration of an FIR under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Based on the said report, FIR No. 1002/2025 dated 15.12.2025 was registered. It was alleged that Respondent No. 4 and the co-accused were in a relationship, and that physical relations had been established prior to their marriage, which was performed as per Muslim rites when Respondent No. 4 was allegedly a minor, being four days short of attaining majority. 4. It is stated that no complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 4 or her family members at the time of the alleged incident. Subsequently, on 29.08.2025, following matrimonial disputes, Respondent No. 4 filed a separate complaint against her husband and his family members; however, the allegations forming the 4 basis of the present FIR were not raised therein. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged complaints with the authorities between August and October 2025 regarding the alleged child marriage, pursuant to which an enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry, statements of the petitioner, Respondent No. 4, and her mother were recorded. It is stated that no allegation was made against the petitioner by Respondent No. 4, though her mother later alleged that the petitioner had compelled the marriage. Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report, the FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. It is stated that certain documents, including the petitioner’s statement, were not included in the charge sheet. It is further case of the petitioner that he is not related to the parties and was not present at the time of the marriage. His application under Section 250 BNSS was dismissed on 13.03.2026, and charges were framed against him on 24.03.2026 under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Hence, the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet filed by the police of Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned Court below has failed to appreciate that 5 the petitioner, being the complainant in the initial instance, was neither properly heard nor was his statement recorded during the enquiry or investigation. On the contrary, the entire prosecution case is based solely upon the statements of respondent No. 4 and her mother (respondent No. 3), which renders the investigation biased and one-sided. The marriage between respondent No. 4 and co-accused Ajnan Babu was solemnized on 21.04.2024 at Raipur with the knowledge and participation of her family members. Despite this, no complaint or allegation regarding the alleged offences was made either before the police authorities, the learned Judicial Magistrate, or any competent authority for a prolonged period. The allegations have surfaced only after an unexplained delay of more than one year and eight months, clearly indicating that the same are an afterthought. 7. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 4 and her parents had willingly consented to the said marriage, and the ceremony was conducted at their residence. No grievance was raised at any point of time prior to the petitioner’s complaint. The belated allegations reflect mala fide intent and are clearly motivated. The prosecution has deliberately suppressed material evidence, including the earlier statements of respondent No. 4 and her mother recorded prior to registration of the FIR, as well as the statement of the petitioner. Such suppression indicates collusion between the investigating authorities and the private respondents, thereby vitiating the entire investigation. There is no 6 cogent evidence on record, such as photographs or testimony of independent witnesses, to establish the presence or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The allegations against the petitioner are thus baseless and unsupported by any credible material. He also submits that the facts of the case reveal a complete reversal of roles, wherein the petitioner, who initially approached the authorities, has been falsely implicated as an accused, while the actual accused persons have been projected as victims, without any lawful basis. The petitioner has been deprived of a fair, impartial, and transparent investigation, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail, despite the absence of a prima facie case. Even a bare perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The continuation of proceedings under these provisions is therefore a gross abuse of the process of law. The prosecution case rests solely on the statements of interested witnesses, namely respondent No. 4 and her mother, without any independent corroboration, which significantly weakens the credibility of the allegations. 8. Learned counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing even a prima facie case, let 7 alone proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The FIR itself indicates that respondent No. 4 and her family members were consenting parties to the marriage, and therefore, no element of coercion or criminal intent can be attributed to the petitioner and there are material contradictions and improvements in the statements of respondent No. 4 recorded during enquiry and investigation, which clearly indicate that the allegations are fabricated and motivated. The entire criminal prosecution has been initiated with a mala fide intention to harass, defame, and falsely implicate the petitioner, and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that this may be pleased to quash the impugned charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 9. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 11. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is 8 warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted [See State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. 12. At the outset, the primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated, that the investigation is biased, and that no prima facie case is made out against him for the offences alleged under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It is further contended that the petitioner, being the complainant, has been wrongly arrayed as an accused. 13. This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submissions. A careful perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation reveals that specific allegations have been made regarding the solemnization of a child marriage and the involvement of persons who facilitated or participated in such marriage. The statement of the mother of the victim (Respondent No. 4), recorded during enquiry and investigation, prima facie indicates the role attributed to the petitioner in pressurizing the family for solemnization of the marriage. 14. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or while considering a petition seeking quashing of proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence 9 or adjudicate upon the reliability or veracity of statements recorded during investigation. The Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the material available on record. 15. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner that the allegations are an afterthought and are motivated cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. The delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged contradictions in statements, and the plea of mala fide are all matters of evidence which require adjudication during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 16. The argument that the petitioner’s statement was not recorded or that certain documents have not been annexed with the charge sheet, even if assumed to be correct, does not by itself vitiate the entire prosecution case at this stage. Such alleged lapses in investigation cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings when prima facie material exists disclosing commission of cognizable offences. 17. The submission that the petitioner is not related to the parties and was not present at the time of marriage is a matter of defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The truthfulness or otherwise of such a plea can only be tested during trial. 18. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is concerned, the FIR and 10 the material collected during investigation disclose that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and that a child marriage was solemnized. The allegations further disclose participation and facilitation by certain persons. At this stage, it cannot be said that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. 19. The contention that the petitioner has been deprived of a fair investigation and that his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated is also not tenable at this stage. The petitioner shall have full opportunity to defend himself during the course of trial, to cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence in his defence. 20. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material placed before it, has framed charges against the petitioner. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference. 21. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and are an abuse of the process of law. The present case does not fall within such exceptional categories. 22. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has 11 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 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 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. 23. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which 12 cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 25. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu