Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07/05/2026

1 Heard Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 49/2021 pending in the Court of learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari including the FIR No. 0132/2021 dated 30.03.2021 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari which resulted into filing of charge sheet of the challan No. 174/2021 dated 18.07.2021 submitted before learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Session Trial No. 49/2021 and the charge memo dated 27.06.2022.

3 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim/ respondent No. 2, aged about 26 years, lodged a written complaint before the Police Station Kurud on 30.03.2021 alleging that the petitioner gave false assurance of marriage and committed sexual intercourse with her since she was aged about 16 years. It was further alleged that the petitioner had recorded obscene video of the sexual act and had been threatening her to make the said video viral. Whenever she used to ask the petitioner to marry her, she has been denied. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0132/2021 was registered by the police for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was also filed on 18.07.2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud. Thereafter, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 49/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, and thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner on 27.06.2022 for the offences under Sections 376-2, 377, 313, 294, 506-II, 509B, of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which are under challenge in this petition.

4 Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 was established with mutual consent and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false as even according to the respondent No. 3/complainant, their relationship existed for more than 12 long years and all of a sudden, the FIR was lodged. Had it been a case of forceful sexual intercourse, the complainant/respondent No. 3 would not have sat quietly and would have reported the matter either to her family members or to the Police but since the said relationship was out of love and affection, the victim did not made any complaint for such long period. There is no material on record except the self statement of the victim/complainant and further there is no material on record to establish that the complainant ever conceived through the petitioner and that the petitioner got the pregnancy terminated. No material has been seized with regard to framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 67 of the IT Act. The victim was very well aware that she belongs to a caste different from the petitioner and when their marriage could not materialise, the petitioner has falsely been roped in this case. Hence, the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

5 On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that when the complainant made a written complaint at the Police Station, prima facie a cognizable offence was found to be made out and as such, the Police was duty bound to register the FI