1 2026:CGHC:20358-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1225 of 2026 Manoj Kurrey S/o Dharam Singh Kurrey Aged About 35 Years R/o Govindvan, Police Station Bilaigarh District Bilaigarh, Sarangarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Hasaud Sakti Prosecutrix 2 - Meena Azaad W/o Shyam Kumar Azad Aged About 36 Years Vill Devarghata, Hasaud Dist Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jaya Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.05.2026 1. Heard Ms. Jaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.02 11:29:11 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. no. 131 / 2025 & Charge sheet no. 124/2025, Registered by police station - Hasaud, Sakti, (C.G) and its consequential prosecution, for the offences punishable under sections- 64(2)(e), 62, 74 & 351(3) BNS may kindly be quashed, in respect to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution story, as borne out from First Information Report No. 131/2025 dated 31.07.2025 registered at Police Station Hasaud, District Sakti (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(e), 62, 74 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential charge-sheet No. 124/2025 filed on 22.09.2025, is that the petitioner, who is posted as a Government Teacher at Middle School, Gunjiyabad, is alleged to have assaulted the victim, who is serving as a Rural Health Officer at Sub-Health Centre, Gunjiyabad, on 31.07.2025 immediately after conclusion of a sector meeting. It is alleged that taking advantage of the circumstances, the petitioner subjected the victim to physical assault attracting the aforesaid penal provisions, pursuant to which the police registered the FIR, conducted investigation, recorded statements of witnesses under the relevant provisions of law, and thereafter filed the charge- sheet before the competent Court. The case has thus culminated into Sessions Trial No. 37/2025 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Sakti, where charges have 3 been framed against the petitioner and the matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations as levelled in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the applicant and are inherently improbable, absurd and devoid of basic factual foundation. It is contended that the present prosecution is a classic instance of a purely civil dispute, arising out of monetary transactions and recovery thereof, being maliciously given a criminal colour with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioner, particularly when the material on record clearly indicates a long-standing consensual relationship of approximately four years between the petitioner and the complainant, which has been deliberately and consciously suppressed in the FIR as well as in her statements, thereby vitiating the very substratum of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that such suppression of material facts, coupled with admitted financial dealings, including substantial transfer of money by the petitioner, establishes that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the petitioner’s demand for return of money and the initiation of independent proceedings by him, thus rendering the prosecution manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motives. It is further argued that even the charges, as framed, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and are not borne out from the material collected 4 during investigation, thereby warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS placing reliance on the well-settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, it is contended that the present case squarely falls within the recognized categories where quashment is justified, particularly where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are inherently improbable, and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with a view to wreak vengeance due to personal grudge. It is thus urged that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the process of law and would result in serious miscarriage of justice, and in absence of any other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has rightly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. 5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the present case does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashment at this stage, particularly when the trial has already progressed to an advanced stage. It is contended that the prosecution has led substantial evidence and the statement of respondent No. 2/victim has already been recorded before the Trial Court, wherein she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the allegations as set out in the FIR, thereby establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the veracity, credibility and evidentiary value of such testimony, as well as the defence sought 5 to be raised by the petitioner regarding alleged consensual relationship and monetary transactions, are matters of trial which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is argued that at this stage, when evidence is being recorded and the prosecution case has found support from the material on record, interference by this Court would amount to pre-judging the merits of the case and stalling a lawful prosecution. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit and filed with the intent to delay the proceedings, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the material available on record, it is evident that the charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed against the petitioner. The trial has commenced and progressed substantially, wherein two prosecution witnesses have already been examined, including the victim/respondent No. 2, whose statement has been duly recorded and who has supported the case of the prosecution by reiterating the allegations as set out in the FIR, thereby disclosing a prima facie case against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law, rather, it is necessary and in the interest of justice 6 that the trial be permitted to proceed and be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet