2026:CGHC:1239 Digitally signed ALOK b S y H A A L R O M K A SHARMA Date: NAFR

2026.01.13

11:27:51 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 18 of 2026

1 - Satish Mishra S/o Late Ramkumar Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Ramnagar Kailash Nagar, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila Thana, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

2 - X (Name And Detail Of The Complainant/prosecutrix Is Given In Closed Envelope)

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant (s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant (s) : Mr. Sunita Manikpuri, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Ku mar Agrawa l

Order on Board

08/01/2026

1.

The present criminal revision filed by the applicant under Section 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 16.12.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Kabirdham, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2025, whereby the charges against the applicant has been framed for the offence under Sections 69, 81, 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the applicant is an accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case No. 76 of 2025, which is arising out of the Crime No. 41 of 2025, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham on the complaint made by the respondent No.2. On 12.09.2025, the complainant lodged a complaint against the applicant that she knew the applicant for last about 02 years as with respect to the offence registered against her brother, she used to go to Police Station and the applicant was a constable there at Police Station Kawardha. They exchanged mobile numbers and to take advantage of his position, he used to call her. On 21.05.2025, the applicant proposed her and took her to visit places, he also proposed her for marriage. Despite her protest and objection he made forceful physical relation with her, she was afraid of for the reason that he is in police service and she would be incarcerated in any offence. By giving threatening he made repeated physical relation with her. On 30.06.2025 when she asked him for marriage otherwise she would lodge a report against him, then he convinced her and took her to Arya Samaj Mandir on 06.07.2025 and performed marriage. In the month of August he again made physical relation with her and thereafter, thrown her from his company by given threatening that she can do whatever she want to do. Thereafter on 12.09.2025, she lodge written complaint. The police have registered the FIR against the applicant for the offence under Section 69, 81, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. On 16.12.2025, the charges have been framed against the applicant, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the entire case of prosecution is false and fabricated and there is no ingredient of any alleged offence. The complainant was the consenting party in the alleged act of 21.05.2025 and she has not made any complaint at that time. It is only when some misunderstanding occurred between them, she lodged the report against the applicant. He would further submit that, from the complaint itself it transpires that the applicant has married with the complainant at Arya Samaj Mandir on 06.07.2025, therefore, there is no ingredient of the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage. The complainant is a major and educated girl having well understanding of her well being. There is no injury found on the body of the complainant, and therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are missing and not sufficient to frame charge and to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the present criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order of framing charge may be set aside and he may be discharged.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel appe