Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nashimuddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1069 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddharth Rathod
For the Respondents: Anusha Naik

Power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly; the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or re-appreciate evidence to determine the veracity of allegations when the FIR and material on record disclose a prima facie cognizable offence.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act; Indian Penal Code - Sections 4, 17 (POCSO), Section 10 (Child Marriage Act), Section 376(2)(n), 34 (IPC) - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Petitioner alleged that investigation was biased, investigation suppressed material evidence, and that the allegations were motivated/afterthought - High Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the reliability/veracity of statements - Disputed questions of fact such as delay in FIR, contradictions, and alibi require trial - Allegations on face value disclosed cognizable offences. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 24)

Facts of the case:
An FIR was registered against the petitioner regarding the alleged child marriage of the survivor (Respondent No. 4) which was solemnized on 21.04.2024. Charges were subsequently framed against the petitioner. Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, the chargesheet, and consequential criminal proceedings, alleging mala fide intent and biased investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the material collected during the investigation, including statements of the survivor's mother, established a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, stating that material questions of fact must be decided during trial.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on grounds of mala fide, biased investigation, and lack of prima facie evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS should be exercised sparingly; the trial court is not to conduct a 'mini-trial' or re-appreciate evidence at the stage of framing charges. If the FIR and material on record prima facie disclose cognizable offences, the court will not stifle the prosecution.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court summarizes the background facts and prayer for quashing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of petitioner's arguments alleging bias and mala fide prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court refuses to adjudicate disputed facts and affirms the threshold for fir quashing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 25)

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the order dated 24-03-26 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special Court, Raipur (C.G), in Special Criminal Case no. 20/2026 whereby the charges has been framed against the petitioners under section 4,17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; Order dated 13-03-26 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special Court 'POCSO', Raipur (C.G), in at Special Criminal Case no. 20/2026 whereby petitioners application for discharge under section whereby 250 of the Bhatriya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 has been rejected; For quashment of First Information Report dated 11-12-25 bearing F.1.R no.1002/2025 registered Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G) under section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4,6 of the Protection of children from sexual Offences, 2012 and also the chargesheet dated 09-01-26 bearing no. 80/2026 filed by the police of police station Tikrapara, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G) under section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4,6 of the Protection of children from sexual Offences, 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G); and to quash the criminal proceeding pending before Additional Session Judge. 1st Fast Tract Special Court "POCSO' Raipur (C.G) in Case No. 20/2026 between "State of C.G vs Nasimuddin and Ors", in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case are that on 11.12.2025, information was received from Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, regarding the alleged child marriage of Respondent No. 4 with co-accused Ajnan Babu, stated to have been solemnized on 21.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3, the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report recommending registration of an FIR under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Based on the said report, FIR No. 1002/2025 dated 15.12.2025 was registered. It was alleged that Respondent No. 4 and the co-accused were in a relationship, and that physical relations had been established prior to their marriage, which was performed as per Muslim rites when Respondent No. 4 was allegedly a minor, being four days short of attaining majority.

4. It is stated that no complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 4 or her family members at the time of the alleged incident. Subsequently, on 29.08.2025, following matrimonial disputes, Respondent No. 4 filed a separate complaint against her husband and his family members; however, the allegations forming the basis of the present FIR were not raised therein.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged complaints with the authorities between August and October 2025 regarding the alleged child marriage, pursuant to which an enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry, statements of the petitioner, Respondent No. 4, and her mother were recorded. It is stated that no allegation was made against the petitioner by Respondent No. 4, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JNashimuddin – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRMP No. 1069 of 2026

Power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly; the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or re-appreciate evidence to determine the veracity of allegations when the FIR and material on record disclose a prima facie cognizable offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Nashimuddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1069 of 2026