Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:4419-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1294 of 2022
Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Parmanand Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
Panchsheel Nagar, Bhilai-3, Charoda, Tahsil And District, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Durg,, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Bhilai,, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
3 - A.B.C.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Digitally
signed by
Order on Board
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
2
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
24/01/2025
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayer:
"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the petition and also be
pleased to quash the FIR 249/2022, registered at
Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) on
26.05.2022 for the offence committed under Sections
376(2)(n) and 506-B of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-
1), in the interest of justice."
2. The present petition is being preferred challenging the registration of
FIR No. 249/2022, dated 26.05.2022, registered at Police Station
Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-B of the IPC and on the basis of complaint
made by respondent No. 3, the present FIR has been registered
against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner known to
the respondent No.3 since last 4 years and they were in love affairs
with each other and also developed physical relation with the
respondent No.3 on the pretext of marriage, but when the petitioner
refused to marry with her, she narrated the incident to her mother and
then lodged the FIR in the Police Station for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the
petitioner had challenged the said FIR by way of the present petition,
but after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been
submitted and charges have also been framed. The trial is at the
advance stage and the petitioner wants to cooperate with the trial. At
this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra an others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC
192 and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed in the petition.
6. From a perusal of the material placed in the petition, it is quite vivid
that the petitioner has made physical relationship with the respondent
No.3 on the pretext of marriage, but when she proposed for marriage,
he refused for the same using filthy language.
7. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 23 held as under:
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/
or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the
High Court would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/ FIR in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final
conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of
the State operate in two specific spheres of activities
and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and
the judicial process should not interfere at the stage
of investigation of offences;"
8. From perusal of the impugned FIR, which is annexed as Annexure P/1
in the instant petition, it reveals that the victim has raised allegation
against the petitioner that she was subjected to forceful sexual
intercourse on 07.12.2021 in the house of his friend at Panchsheel
Nagar, Charoda on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he made
physical relation many times and ultimately on 08.02.2022, when she
insisted him for marriage and shown her difficulty, at that time, he
refused for marriage by saying that he belongs to higher caste from
her and he could not perform marriage with her and if she insisted
repeatedly, he will kill her. Despite the threatening given by the
appellant, she again made a telephonic call to him on 12.04.2022, but
he again refused to perform marriage with her. When she had gone in
depression, her parents have asked the reason and then she
disclosed the incident of rape on the pretext of marriage with her.
*******The defence of the petitioner that the victim had engaged in
consensual physical relation, is the disputed question of fact, which
needs proper investigation and only on the basis of contents of the
FIR, it cannot be held that it is a bald allegation. Whether or not, she
was under the misconception of fact or gave her consent on the
pretext of marriage or she voluntarily engaged in making physical
relation with the petitioner are to be relevant consideration, for which
proper investigation is required. Therefore, there is no ground in the
present petition to quash the FIR under the facts and circumstances of
the present case as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
9. From the aforesaid considerations, we do not find any good ground to
interfere in the petition and to quash the FIR No. 249/2022, dated
26.05.2022, registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg
(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-B
of the IPC. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
10. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
