1 2026:CGHC:4556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 284 of 2026 Prakash Sahu @ Bablu S/o Tejram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Pisdapara, Doundi, Police Station Doundi, Disrict - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police Sta- tion Doundi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - ABC (Details of Complainant Provided In Closed Envelope) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, 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 28.01.2026 1 Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.29 11:10:18 +0530 2 2 The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs:- “A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 144/2025 dated 06.11.2025 at 19.05 hours filed at P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G) against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 filed at the instance of respondent No. 02 against the petitioner. B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet bearing No. 118/2025, filed by the police of P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G) on 13.12.2025 under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pursuant to FIR bearing No. 144/2025 dated 06.11.2025 at 19.05 hours filed at P.S. Doundi, Balod (C.G) against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District- Balod (C.G) in Criminal Case No. 3263/2025 wherein the Learned Magistrate Court has taken cognisance of the offence under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by 3 Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Balod, District- Balod (C.G), wherein cognisance has been taken by the Learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 10/2026 under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. E. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings pending in Sessions Case No. 10/2026 pending before Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Balod, District- Balod (C.G) under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 filed pursuant to registration of FIR bearing No. 144/2025 dated 06.11.2025 at 19.05 hours filed at P.S.- Doundi, Balod C.G) against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. F. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the present criminal proceedings are entirely misconceived and constitute an abuse of the process of law. Even if the allegations in the complaint and FIR are taken at their highest, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other for a considerable period and were in a consensual relationship. The marriage between the parties had been mutually discussed and 4 agreed upon by the families, but due to misunderstanding and souring of the relationship, the marriage did not materialize. This is corroborated by the statements of witnesses such as Ramadhar Sahu, Lokmanya Sahu, and Hinchharam Sahu, who confirm that the families had initially agreed to the marriage within two years and that the subsequent refusal to marry by the petitioner arose only after the relationship deteriorated. 4 Learned counsel submits that the allegations of forcible sexual intercourse and false promise of marriage are wholly unsustainable at this stage. There is no material to suggest that the petitioner had any dishonest intention or mala fide motive at the inception of the relationship. On the contrary, the complaint, FIR, and statements of the complainant themselves demonstrate that the sexual relations between the parties were consensual and that the parties were closely acquainted. Furthermore, no evidence has been seized to suggest that any video or recording was made by the petitioner, or that coercion was involved. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The alleged incidents range from October 2023 to February 2025, whereas the complaint was lodged in November 2025, i.e., after several months. Such delay raises serious doubts regarding the veracity of the allegations and indicates that the complaint may have been motivated by frustration over the failed relationship. 5 5 Learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 and Sonu v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 517, wherein it has been held that in cases of alleged sexual intercourse on promise of marriage, courts must examine whether the promise was made with dishonest intention or mala fide motives. In the present case, there is no allegation or material to suggest that the promise of marriage was false at the inception. The subsequent refusal to marry does not, by itself, constitute an offence under the BNSS. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail and has no criminal antecedents. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner’s reputation, career, and personal liberty. 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings are wholly misconceived and amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and all proceedings pending against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR, complaint, and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya 6 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage, and when the petitioner subsequently refused to marry, the complaint was lodged. It is further submitted that at the stage of quashing, this Court is not required to appreciate evidence or conduct a trial. The statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses support the prosecution case, and issues relating to consent, intention, and promise of marriage are matters to be determined during trial. The State also submits that the delay in filing the FIR is reasonably explained, the medical evidence is corroborative and not determinative, and there is no material to indicate that the proceedings are frivolous or an abuse of process. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 9 From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complainant lodged a report against the accused, Prakash Sahu, alleging that he had induced her into a relationship under the false promise of marriage and had repeatedly committed physical relations with her without her consent. It is stated that the accused first took the complainant to his house and subsequently on multiple occasions between 2020 to 2025, forcibly engaged in sexual acts with her under the assurance of marriage. The 7 complainant further alleged that she became pregnant and, upon the accused’s insistence, underwent an abortion. It is also alleged that despite repeated requests and family interventions, the accused repeatedly postponed marriage and ultimately refused to marry the complainant. Thereafter, he allegedly threatened her with defamation and exposure of videos recorded during the incidents, causing her mental distress and harassment. 10 During investigation, the statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, the spot of the incident was inspected, and the complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS was documented. Physical and genital examinations of the complainant and accused were conducted, and audio-visual evidence submitted by the complainant was seized and sent to FSL for examination. Based on the material collected, charge- sheet dated 11.12.2025 was filed against the accused under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, and the matter is now pending before the competent Court for trial. 11 At this stage, the Court is only concerned with determining whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence. It is settled law that in quashing proceedings, this Court is not to appreciate evidence, conduct a mini-trial, or delve into disputed questions of fact. The scope of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is limited to cases where the allegations are so absurd, inherently 8 improbable, or legally untenable that no cognizable offence can be said to be made out. 12 In the present case, the allegations, if assumed to be true, disclose prima facie offences under Sections 64(2)(M) and 351(3) BNSS. Whether the sexual acts were consensual, whether there was a promise of marriage with mala fide intent, and whether threats were made by the petitioner are matters which require detailed appreciation of evidence at trial. The delay in lodging the complaint, the nature of the relationship, and the submissions regarding consent are all matters to be examined by the Trial Court. 13 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no ground exists for interference at this stage. The petitioner cannot claim quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, or proceedings merely on the basis of a subsequent denial of marriage, alleged consensual relationship, or delay in lodging the complaint. To do so would preclude the complainant from having her case tried on merits and would amount to pre-judging factual disputes that fall within the domain of the Trial Court. 14 Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during trial. The competent Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law, ensuring 9 fair and impartial adjudication of the issues raised. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu