[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.15
10:19:04
+0530 1
2026:CGHC:16795-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1034 of 2026
Mukesh Sonkar S/o Vijay Sonkar Aged About 39 Years Resident of
House Number 498, Dipra Para Durg, Police Station Kotwali, District-
Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Supela, District- Durg (C.G.)
2 - Xyz Nill (Complainant)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondent-State : 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
13.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.')
praying for following relief(s) :-
"1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court
Smay kindly be pleased to allow the instant
petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed
by the petitioner.
2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the F.I.R. bearing no. 1065/2025 registered
at Police Station Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for
the alleged offence punishable under Section 69
and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to
quash entire charge sheet no. 1113/2025 filed on
dated 08.11.2025 for the offence punishable under
Section 69 and 115 (2) of the B.N.S filed pursuant
thereto.
4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to
quash the order for taking cognizance dated
11.11.2025.
5. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned order dated 03.12.2025,
wherein the learned trial court has framed the
charges under section 69 and 115(2) of B.N.S.
against the petitioner.
6. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the further entire criminal proceedings
arising out of Sessions Trial No. 359/2025 pending
before the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) (State of Chhattisgarh
through Police Station Supela versus Mukesh
Sonkar).
7. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit, may kindly be passed, in the interest of
justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of
the FIR as well as the material collected during the course of
investigation would clearly demonstrate that the relationship
between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was purely
consensual in nature, arising out of a long-standing love affair
spanning over a period of approximately three years. It is
contended that the victim herself, in unequivocal terms, has
admitted in the FIR that she was well acquainted with the
petitioner since 2023 and had voluntarily entered into a romantic
relationship with him. In such circumstances, it is submitted that
the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under
Section 69 of the B.N.S.S., particularly the element of
"misconception of fact" induced by a false promise of marriage at
the inception, are conspicuously absent in the present case.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the victim is a major,
educated and independent woman aged about 28 years, who is
running her own beauty parlour and is fully capable of
understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. It is
argued that her conduct, as reflected from the FIR itself, shows
that she was in a conscious and voluntary relationship with the
petitioner and there was no element of coercion, inducement or
deception. It is thus contended that a consensual relationship
between two adults, which subsequently turns sour, cannot be
given a criminal colour merely on account of failure to solemnize
marriage, particularly in absence of any material to show that the
promise to marry was false from its very inception.
5. It is also submitted that there is an unexplained delay in lodging
the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged incidents are stated to have
occurred between 21.08.2025 to 31.08.2025, whereas the FIR
came to be registered on 10.09.2025 without any plausible
explanation. Learned counsel contends that such delay assumes
significance in the facts of the present case, as it casts a serious
doubt on the veracity and genuineness of the allegations,
especially when the relationship between the parties was
admittedly ongoing and consensual over a considerable period of
time.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even during
the pendency of the trial, the victim has failed to appear before the
learned trial Court for her examination despite repeated
opportunities, compelling the Court to issue warrants for securing
her presence. This conduct, according to the learned counsel,
further fortifies the defence of the petitioner that the allegations
are not bona fide and that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law.
7. It is also emphatically argued that the conduct of respondent No.
2, as reflected from the record, clearly indicates mala fide
intention, inasmuch as she has lodged a similar FIR against
another person, namely Jagrit Sahu, on identical allegations of
physical relations on the false pretext of marriage during
overlapping time periods. Learned counsel submits that such
conduct of simultaneously alleging identical accusations against
two different individuals demolishes the very substratum of the
prosecution case and renders the allegations inherently
improbable and unworthy of credence.
8. Lastly, learned counsel submits that it is a settled position of law,
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of
Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Deepak Gulati v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, that consensual relationships
between adults, even if accompanied by a promise to marry,
would not ipso facto attract criminal liability unless it is established
that such promise was false and made with no intention of being
fulfilled from the very inception. In the absence of any such
allegation or material in the present case, it is submitted that the
continuation of the impugned proceedings would be nothing but
an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, the same
deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel, vehemently opposes
the petition and vehemently opposes the petition and submits that
from a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, a
clear prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the
offences alleged. It is contended that the victim has specifically
alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her
on the false promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry
her, coupled with allegations of assault and criminal intimidation,
which are duly supported by her statement recorded during
investigation.
10. Learned State counsel further submits that the statement of the
victim, along with the medical examination report indicating
injuries, though simple in nature, lends sufficient corroboration at
this stage and cannot be brushed aside while exercising inherent
jurisdiction. It is argued that the question as to whether the
consent was obtained on the basis of a false promise of marriage
or whether the relationship was purely consensual is a matter of
evidence, which can only be adjudicated upon during the course
of trial. It is also submitted that the investigation has been
conducted in accordance with law, relevant material has been
collected, and the charge-sheet has been filed after due
application of mind. The trial Court, upon consideration of the
material available on record, has already framed charges against
the petitioner, which itself indicates existence of sufficient grounds
to proceed against him.
11. Learned State counsel contends that the defence sought to be
raised by the petitioner pertains to disputed questions of fact,
including the nature of the relationship between the parties and
the intention of the petitioner at the inception, which cannot be
examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. It is
thus submitted that the present petition is devoid of merits and
deserves to be dismissed, leaving the petitioner to raise all his
contentions before the trial Court during the course of trial.
12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
13. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the victim has
made specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner to
the effect that he had established physical relations with her on
the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her, and
has also allegedly subjected her to assault and criminal
intimidation. The statements of the victim recorded during the
course of investigation, coupled with the medical report indicating
injuries, though simple in nature, prima facie lend support to the
prosecution case. The investigating agency, after conducting due
investigation and collecting material evidence, has filed the
charge-sheet against the petitioner, and the learned trial Court,
upon due consideration, has already framed charges against him.
14. At this stage, it is well settled that while exercising inherent
powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., this Court does not
embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon
disputed questions of fact. The defence sought to be raised by the
petitioner, that the relationship between the parties was
consensual in nature and did not arise out of any false promise of
marriage, involves factual determination which requires
appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses,
particularly the victim, and therefore cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in proceedings of this nature.
15. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the allegations
made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do disclose
the commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to be
inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference at
this stage. The grounds raised by the petitioner, including delay in
lodging the FIR, the conduct of the victim, and the plea of
consensual relationship, are all matters of defence which can be
appropriately tested during the course of trial.
16. It is further to be noted that the learned trial Court has already
applied its judicial mind and framed charges against the petitioner,
which indicates the existence of sufficient material to proceed
against him. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a
legitimate prosecution, which is impermissible in law unless the
case falls within the well-recognized parameters for quashment,
which is not so in the present case.
17. Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on
record, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., for quashing of the
FIR, charge-sheet, or the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
18. The petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. It is,
however, made clear that any observations made herein are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not
prejudice the case of either party during the course of trial.
19. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
