1 2026:CGHC:10930-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 637 of 2026 Birendra Jaiswal S/o Lt. Sh. Shiv Pujan Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years R/o Flat No. 707, 7th Floor, Srishti Palazzo, St. Xavier Road, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur 492006 Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Nikki Vishwakarma D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Vishwakarma Aged About 25 Years R/o Lalita Chowk, Near Santoshi Mandir, Baidahi Para, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Richa Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. Richa Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.03.03 16:48:30 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Petition and quash the Final Report Bearing No. 02/2026 Dated 06.01.2026, FIR Dated 12.11.2025 in Crime No: 149/2025 dated 12.11.2025, registered at Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg (C.G.) (Originally registered on Zero at P.S: Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) for an alleged offence punishable U/s 69, 351(2), BNS, 2023 On 08/11/25 And Cognizance Order dated 12.01.2026 in Criminal Case No. 25/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District Durg Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Final Report dated 06.01.2026 and the consequential order of cognizance dated 12.01.2026 have been passed without proper application of mind and without there being any prima facie material to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that even if the entire allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, and the dispute in question arises out of an employment- related discord coupled with personal animosity subsequent to refusal of re-employment. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the 3 alleged incidents are stated to have occurred between April 2022 and September 2025, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on 08.11.2025, after the petitioner had already instituted criminal proceedings against the complainant on 30.10.2025 in connection with a physical assault upon him. The chronology of events, particularly the registration of FIR No. 280/2025 at P.S. Ganj, Raipur at the instance of the petitioner prior to the present FIR, clearly indicates that the impugned prosecution is a counterblast and an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant was fully aware of the marital status of the petitioner, as she had worked in his establishment for several years where his family members frequently visited. In such circumstances, the allegation of inducement or false promise of marriage is inherently improbable and does not satisfy the legal threshold for invoking Section 69 of the BNS. It is argued that the relationship, if any, was consensual and voluntary, and the criminal law cannot be set in motion to give a colour of deception to a strained personal relationship. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1870/2025, and the earlier petition seeking quashment was withdrawn only in view of the filing of the Final Report. The continuation of criminal proceedings despite absence of cogent material would amount to abuse of the process of court, warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the prosecution case discloses specific, detailed and consistent allegations of sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage extending over a considerable period. It is submitted that victim-A submitted a written complaint at Police Station Azad Chowk narrating that the accused, Virendra Jaiswal, had established physical relations with her from 10.04.2022 to 07.09.2025 by inducing her with a promise of marriage and repeatedly threatening to kill and defame her in case she disclosed the incidents. On the basis of the said written application, an unnumbered FIR dated 08.11.2025 was initially registered and thereafter, upon jurisdictional transfer, Crime No. 149/2025 was duly registered at Police Station Amleshwar under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the complaint contains a detailed account of the manner in which the accused, being the employer of the victim at Hindustan Pipe and Lifting Equipment, Station Road, Raipur, misused his dominant position. It is alleged that shortly after her joining in March 2022, the accused subjected her to unwelcome physical advances, and subsequently, on the pretext of a customer meeting, took her to a secluded area near Kumhari where, after professing love and promising marriage, he forcibly established physical relations with her in his car. Thereafter, on multiple occasions including visits to hotels such as Piccadilly Hotel and Sarovar Portico at Raipur, the accused 5 continued to have sexual intercourse with her under the assurance that he would marry her upon obtaining divorce from his wife, while simultaneously threatening her with dire consequences and social defamation. 7. It is further submitted that during investigation, the statement of victim-A was recorded, the places of occurrence were inspected, and site maps were prepared. Upon appearance of the accused in connection with his anticipatory bail proceedings, he was interrogated and formally arrested on 02.01.2026. The vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence, namely the Celtas car bearing No. CG 04 MZ 7711, was seized pursuant to notice under Section 94 of the BNSS. The investigation, according to the State, yielded sufficient material to establish that the consent of the victim was vitiated by deception and threats, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 69 BNS. 8. Learned State counsel contends that the delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained in light of the continuous threat, intimidation and emotional manipulation exercised by the accused over the victim, coupled with his position of influence and financial standing. It is argued that the petitioner’s defence regarding counterblast or employment dispute raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. Since the charge sheet dated 06.01.2026 has been filed after due investigation and cognizance has already been 6 taken by the competent Court, the petition deserves to be dismissed, leaving the petitioner to face trial in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 categorically stated by filing an affidavit that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings and has no objection if the FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential cognizance order are quashed by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the affidavit has been executed voluntarily, out of free will and consent, and without any undue influence, coercion or pressure from any quarter. On the strength of the said affidavit, it is urged that since the dispute between the parties has now been amicably resolved and the complainant herself does not desire to prosecute the matter further, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to unnecessary harassment of the parties. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the settlement and the categorical stand taken by respondent No.2, this Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No. 149/2025. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 11. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the Investigating Agency has undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 and, 7 upon evaluation of the material collected, has found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case diary reflects that the written complaint of the victim was duly recorded; her statement was taken in detail; the places of alleged occurrence were inspected; site maps were prepared; the vehicle alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was seized pursuant to notice; and other relevant documentary and material evidence was gathered. Upon completion of investigation, Final Report No. 02/2026 dated 06.01.2026 was submitted before the competent Court, and cognizance has thereafter been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 12.01.2026. 12. At this stage, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or corresponding provision of the BNSS), is not expected to appreciate evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. Unless the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose any offence or the proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of process of court, interference at the threshold is not warranted. 8 13. In the present matter, the allegations contained in the FIR and reiterated in the charge-sheet are neither vague nor bald. They contain specific assertions of inducement by promise of marriage, continued physical relationship allegedly founded upon such promise, and threats of defamation and harm. Whether such promise was false from inception, whether consent was vitiated by deception, and whether the relationship was consensual are all questions that necessarily require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashment. 14. The submission regarding delay in lodging the FIR, and the plea of counterblast in view of the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner, also raise disputed questions of fact. Such issues can be effectively adjudicated only upon a full-fledged trial where evidence is led by both sides. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner, however plausible it may appear, cannot be tested in proceedings of this nature without traversing into the domain of factual appreciation, which is impermissible at this stage. 15. As regards the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 expressing her unwillingness to pursue the matter, it is to be noted that the offences alleged pertain to serious allegations of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage. Such offences are not purely private in nature but have a significant societal element. 9 The criminal law, once set in motion on such allegations, does not become redundant merely because the complainant expresses an inclination not to prosecute, particularly when a charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Agency. 16. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and the matter requires adjudication on merits before the trial Court. No exceptional circumstance is made out warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 18. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice either party during the course of trial, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu