1 2026:CGHC:6268 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 16.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on 04.02.2026 Uploaded on 04.02.2026 CRR No. 547 of 2021  Jagjit Singh Sonsoya @ Ricchu S/o Gajjan Singh Sonsoya Aged About 46 Years R/o 3 A, Street- 67, Sector 6, Civic Centre, Bhilai Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge CAV Order 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard 昀椀nally. 2. The present petition has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.04 15:53:08 +0530 2 “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call for the record of the courts below and an order dated 19.03.2021 of framing charge and charges vide charge memo 19.03.2021 passed in Spl. C. STSC/1/2021 by Special Judge, Durg may kindly be please to set aside/quash and applicant may kindly be please to discharge from an o昀昀ence, in the interest of justice. ” 3. The facts of the case, as borne out from the FIR, are that allegations have been levelled against the applicant to the e昀昀ect that for the last about 昀椀fteen years he had sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and used to threaten her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix used to visit the house of the applicant and, likewise, the applicant also used to visit the house of the prosecutrix. On the basis of these allegations, o昀昀ences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were registered. The 昀椀nal report was submitted by the police under section 376, 506 part II of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and section 3 (2) (v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as Act 1989). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, discloses a prolonged consensual relationship spanning nearly 昀椀fteen years between two adults, commencing around 2005, during which the complainant admittedly resided with the applicant at his house and thereafter in a rented accommodation, followed by continuous 3 voluntary interactions, mutual visits, and physical relations without any contemporaneous complaint or resistance. It is submitted that the First Information Report dated 29.02.2020, registered as Crime No. 105/2020 at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, was lodged only after an alleged breakdown of the relationship and contains no allegation whatsoever that the applicant exploited the complainant on the basis of her caste, nor does it disclose any act attracting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent introduction of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at the stage of 昀椀ling of the 昀椀nal report, solely on the basis of a caste certi昀椀cate produced two months after the FIR, is a clear afterthought and lacks any factual foundation, as the FIR and initial statements do not attribute the alleged acts to caste-based animus. It is contended that the allegations relating to January 2020 also arise in the backdrop of an anticipated marriage, with the complainant herself admitting preparation and participation therein, thereby negating any inference of absence of consent or dishonest inducement from the inception. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial court, while framing charges on 19.03.2021, failed to judiciously examine the inherent inconsistencies, unexplained delay, absence of medical or independent corroboration, and the 4 settled legal position that a mere breach of a promise to marry, following a long voluntary relationship, does not constitute rape. Thus, according to learned counsel, the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court by setting aside the impugned order and discharging the applicant from all the o昀昀ences alleged. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 4010 (para 10,11,13,14,18,19 and 20 of AIR) is directly pertinent, ruling that a simple failure to honor a marriage promise does not amount to a false assurance unless devoid of intent to ful昀椀ll from the beginning, and herein, the complainant's knowledge of barriers (caste, marriage) and persistent relations disprove invalidated consent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, while communications (if present) fall short of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act criteria for being non-public and non- assaultive, justifying annulment similar to the relief granted therein. Analogously, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 327 para 18, 19 and 20 of AIR) delineates the boundary between consensual intimacy and rape for adults like the complainant, a widow aware of implications, who upheld years of closeness without ill intent from the applicant, 5 quashing charges under Sections 376, 420, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act where the complaint followed discord, paralleling this matter's delayed Report and lack of coercive features, advocating for discharge to forestall misuse. Moerover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 4007 of 2024) (Copy annexed para no. 7, 13, 15, 17) rea昀케rms that extended voluntary relations, even with marriage pledges, do not comprise rape absent dishonest enticement from the outset, as shown here by the complainant's deliberate decisions over years following marital disclosure, resulting in discharge under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and case closure, directly supporting equivalent remedy given the applicant's factual strengths. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that these judicial precedents, rigorously applied, reveal the prosecution's position as unsustainable, with the 15-year chronology, shared interactions, postponed caste reference, and supportive proofs (testimonies verifying duration, medical alignment with consent) decisively favoring the applicant's exoneration, as no initial fraud or atrocity surfaces, and any lapse signi昀椀es personal disagreement, not crime, necessitating annulment to ensure equity. 9. Learned State Counsel submitted that the impugned order framing 6 charges has been passed strictly in accordance with law after due consideration of the material collected during investigation. It is contended that the complainant has consistently alleged that the applicant maintained physical relations with her on repeated assurances of marriage and later reneged on the same, thereby raising a prima facie case under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prolonged nature of the relationship and the complainant’s version that she continued the association solely on the belief of marriage give rise to triable issues which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of framing of charge. 10. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR and the subsequent inclusion of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are matters of evidence, and the investigation has revealed that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that the applicant had knowledge of the same. Whether the alleged o昀昀ence was committed on account of her caste can only be determined after a full-昀氀edged trial. 11. It is lastly submitted by the state Counsel that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required only to see whether there is su昀케cient ground to presume the commission of the o昀昀ence, and not to appreciate evidence in detail or to examine the defence of the accused. Accordingly, the State prays for dismissal of the revision petition and a昀케rmation of the impugned order. 7 12. We have heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, 13. The facts stated in the FIR and in the prosecutrix’s own statements show that the parties were in a relationship for nearly 昀椀fteen years, starting around the year 2005. During this period, the prosecutrix herself admits that she lived with the applicant on more than one occasion, remained in regular contact with him, and had physical relations with him. At no point during these many years did she make any complaint to the police or to any other authority. The long duration of the relationship, the admitted mutual visits, and the absence of any immediate complaint clearly show that the relationship was voluntary and based on consent. Such a long and continuous relationship between two adults cannot later be treated as rape merely because the relationship eventually ended or turned sour. 14. This Court 昀椀nds merit in the applicant’s argument that there is no material to show that the promise of marriage was false or dishonest from the very beginning. The prosecutrix herself admits that she continued the relationship with the applicant for a long time, even though she was aware of social and personal obstacles such as caste di昀昀erences and the applicant’s marital status. These admissions clearly show that the relationship was continued with full knowledge and consent, and not on the basis of any deception 8 from the outset. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, mere non-ful昀椀lment of a promise to marry, following a prolonged consensual relationship, does not attract the o昀昀ence of rape unless the promise was false at the very inception, a condition which is wholly unsubstantiated in the present case. 15. The application of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also not supported by the material on record and cannot be sustained. A bare perusal of the FIR demonstrates that no allegation whatsoever was made that the alleged acts were committed on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The said provision was introduced only at the stage of submission of the 昀椀nal report, after the prosecutrix produced her caste certi昀椀cate nearly two months after lodging the FIR. Such belated inclusion, without any foundational averment or material to establish caste- based motive, clearly indicates an afterthought and does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the o昀昀ence must be committed on the ground of the victim’s caste. The law is well settled that mere knowledge of caste is insu昀케cient to attract the rigours of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 16. As regards the charge under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, the alleged threats are vague, general, and arise in 9 the context of a troubled personal relationship. They are not speci昀椀c, immediate, or supported by independent evidence to show criminal intimidation as required under the law. Moreover, the prosecutrix remained silent for a long time despite these alleged threats, which further weakens the prosecution’s case. 17. In Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that unexplained delay in lodging FIR in cases of sexual assault casts serious doubt on the veracity of allegations, particularly when the parties are closely related and the allegations are raised belatedly. 18. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, has categorically held that where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala 昀椀de and are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the High Court would be justi昀椀ed in exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings. The present case clearly falls within the said parameters. 19. This Court is aware that at the stage of framing charges, a detailed examination of evidence is not required. However, it is also well settled that if the material on record, even when taken at face value, does not show the essential elements of the alleged o昀昀ences, the accused cannot be forced to face a criminal trial. In the present case, the order framing charges appears to be a 10 mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, ignoring important contradictions, the long delay in reporting, the absence of medical or independent evidence, and binding legal precedents on the issue 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in gross abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the present revision deserves to be allowed. 21. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2021, whereby charges were framed against the applicant in Special Case STSC/1/2021, is hereby set aside. The applicant is discharged from all the o昀昀ences alleged against him. The proceedings arising out of Crime No. 105/2020, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, stand quashed. 22. Accordingly, the instant CRR is allowed with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti