Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Laxmi Kumar Dahariya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1944 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sachin Nidhi
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma
The court affirmed that charges must be tried unless clear evidence of false implication is presented, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating evidence during trial.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Sections 74 and 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Sections 354 and 455 of IPC - Petition to quash F.I.R. and charge-sheet against the petitioner on grounds of false implication and lack of evidence - The court finds that the trial has commenced, and the case needs to proceed to trial to establish the facts. (Paras 2, 8)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offense under Section 354 IPC; however, the trial Court framed the charges appropriately based on the facts presented. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of entering the complainant’s home and attempting to sexually assault her while being caught by her nephew.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court appropriately framed charges based on the allegations made, and the case must proceed to trial.
Issues: The main questions were regarding the framing of charges and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the petitioner's claims of false implication were not supported by evidence and the trial should continue.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court hears both parties in the petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accusations of false implications require factual scrutiny. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial must proceed to determine validity of charges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. petition is dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 9) |
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
24.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 / State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:
“i) F.I.R. No. 263/2024 dated 28.10.2024, registered at Police Station- Hardibazar, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C.
ii) Chargesheet No.263/2024 dated 15.12.2024 filed before the Court of Learned JMFC, Pali, District- Korba (C.g.), for the offence U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C. arising out of crime no.263/2024.
Iii) The Cognizance order dated 23.12.2024 taken by the Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) in a Criminal Case No. 1457/2024 for the offence U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C.
iv) The Charges framed U/s-74, 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C. arising out of crime no.263/2024 at Police Station- Hardibazar, District- Korba (C.G.) in a criminal case no.1457/2024 pending before the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) and the whole consequential proceedings.”
3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 27.10.2024 at 10:00 pm, the present petitioner being acquainted with the complainant namely Sanita Kosle, by taking advantage of the complainant's loneliness, entered into the house of the complainant forcefully and removed his clothes with the intention of doing obscene acts with the complainant. After that, the petitioner has tore the clothes worn by the complainant and molested her and when the complainant started crying and screaming, the complainant's real nephew Dinesh Sonawani came inside the house of the complainant and saved the complainant from the wrong act of the petitioner. On the basis of the above written report of the complainant, Hardibazar police station has registered a crime against the petitioner under Section 74 , 331(5) of BNS, Corresponding Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C. in crime number 263/2024. After lodging the aforesaid F.I.R. against the accused, the Police authority has arrested the present petitioner on
11.12.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is a government servant, having no involvement in the aforesaid crime and a false case has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioner wants to submit that the complaint on basis of which the FIR has been lodged shows the different version of story, as compared to the Statement given by the complainant before the Police Authority and 164 Cr.P.C. Statement given before the trial Court. He further submits that in offence an offense under Section 354 I.P.C., the prosecution must prove that the accused used force or criminal force against the victim with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the courts have to scrutinize whether the evidence supports the ingredients of the offense under Section 354 , 455 of I.P.C, but the learned trial Court has not looked into the aforesaid ingredients before the framing of charge. He also submits that the complainant is also demanding the money from the petitioner to resolve the dispute/false case made out against the petitioner and with respect to the same, various complaint has been made out by the pet
