2026:CGHC:7732-DB NAFR Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.02.12

17:04:18 +0530 CRMP No. 456 of 2026 Hermon Ekka S/o Simon Ekka Aged About 61 Years Occupation- Government Service, Resident Of House No. 06, Kanha Homes, Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 02, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

12.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“(A) Kindly may quash criminal proceeding of criminal Sessions Case No. 293/2025 U/s 376(2)(n), 323, 294 IPC pending before learned upper session Judge F.T.C. Bilaspur (C.G.)

(B) Kindly may quash the First Information report No. 0543/2025 U/s 376(2)(n), 323, 294 IPC dated 07.08.2025 in the interest of justice.”

3. Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS on 11.08.2025 clearly indicates that she was in telephonic contact with the petitioner for about 8–10 months and had fallen in love with him. The material further reveals that the relationship continued for a considerable period. The medical history given by the victim also reflects that the relationship was consensual. Thus, the record itself suggests that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and mutual in nature.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that as per the FIR itself, the complainant had worked as a maid in the petitioner’s house in the year 2023, where he was residing along with his family. Therefore, she was fully aware from the very inception that the petitioner was a married person. In such circumstances, there could not have been any false promise of marriage so as to vitiate her consent. When a woman knowingly enters into a relationship despite being aware of the subsisting marriage of the man, the allegation of a subsequent refusal to marry cannot convert a consensual relationship into an offence of rape.

5. Mr. Verma places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been held that a consensual relationship which later turns sour cannot be given the colour of rape in the absence of any deception from the inception. Further reliance is placed upon Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that to constitute rape on the ground of false promise of marriage, the promise must have been false from the very beginning and the consent must have been obtained on the basis of such misconception of fact. Similarly, in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, it has been held that when the parties are in a consensual relationship and the victim is aware of the circumstances, Section 376 IPC is not attracted merely because the marriage did not take place. Reference may also be made to Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, wherein it has been observed that a consensual relationship between adults which subsequently fails does not amount to rape in absence of fraudulent intent from inception.

6. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law and the admitted facts emerging from the FIR and the stat