[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:9787-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 594 of 2026
Rahul Singh S/o Brijbhushan Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o
Pandavpara P.S. Patna District- Korea (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Patna District- Korea (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
2 - ABC Nill
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioner with following
prayer :
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be
pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to
quash the First Information report dated 23.08.2025
along with the charge-sheet and taking cognizance
by learned Add. Session Judge (FTC) Baikanthpur
District- korea on 27.11.2025 proceeding in
connection with the crime bearing Crime/FIR No.
0166/2025 dated 23.08.2025, Framing of charge
dated 10.12.2025, Session Trial no. 122/2025 u/s
64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 296,351(3), 115(2) of BNS 2023
(Annexure P-1) (colly), in the interest of justice."
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant /
respondent No.2, who is the maternal aunt of petitioner lodged a
complaint on 23.08.2025 at PS Patna District: Korea alleging that
petitioner established physical relation with her forcibly on
08.08.2025, 11.08.2025, 19.08.2025 and 21.08.2025. On the
basis of said complaint, an FIR No. 0166/2025 was registered u/s
64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3), 115(2) of BNS 2023 against the
petitioner. During the course of investigation complaint was
medically examined and after completion of the investigation,
charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.),
wherefrom the case has been sent to the Sessions, Koriya and
ultimately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) / Special
Judge under POCSO Act, Baikunthpur received the case on
transfer for trial, wherein case has been registered as Sessions
Case No. 122/2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petition
has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the instant case and in the bail
application of the petitioner, the complainant herself gave an
affidavit that the petitioner has not committed rape with her and
she has no objection in his bail application and such, the
Additional Session Judge (FTC) grant bail to the petitioner by
order dated 24.09.2022. He also submitted that SHO Patna has
mentioned in his letter no:300/2025 dated 19.10.2025 written to
SP for permission to file charge sheet that the complainant did not
produce her children for recording of statement that the
complainant appear twice before the Court for recording
statement u/s 183 of BNSS, 2023 but denied the incident
therefore her statement was not recorded. This letter is part of
charge sheet filed the Court. He further submitted that the MLC is
also negative, hence continuation of criminal proceedings would
be abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be set
aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing
for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that
since the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner after
due investigation and perusal of the materials on record discloses
commission of cognizable offence, as such, no interference is
warranted at this stage.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. The record reflects that on the basis of complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 on 23.08.2025, FIR No. 0166/2025 has been
registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3), 115(2) of the BNS, 2023.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court and the matter is now pending trial as
Sessions Case No. 122/2025 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC) / Special Judge under POCSO Act,
Baikunthpur.
8. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the complainant has subsequently filed an affidavit in the bail
proceedings stating that no such incident occurred and that she
has no objection to grant of bail. It has also been contended that in
proceedings under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, the
complainant did not support the prosecution case and that the
medical report (MLC) is negative.
9. At this stage, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC / corresponding inherent powers, this
Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence or
adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The Court has only to
see whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material
collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of a
cognizable offence.
10. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations of
forcible physical relations on multiple dates. The charge-sheet has
been filed after investigation and the materials collected by the
investigating agency form part of the record before the trial Court.
The effect of the alleged affidavit, the complainant's conduct
during recording of statement under Section 183 BNSS, and the
evidentiary value of the medical report are all matters which
require appreciation of evidence and can be adjudicated only
during trial.
11. The subsequent conduct of the complainant or filing of an affidavit
in bail proceedings, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the
proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet
disclose commission of serious and cognizable offences. Whether
the complainant resiles from her earlier version and what impact it
would have on the prosecution case are matters to be tested by
cross-examination before the trial Court.
12. From the material placed on record, it cannot be said that no
offence is made out or that the proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide so as to warrant interference at this stage.
The contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to defence, which
cannot be considered in proceedings seeking quashment.
13. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending against
the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 122/2025.
14. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed.
15. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein shall
not prejudice the case of either party during trial, and the learned
trial Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law on
the basis of evidence adduced before it.
16. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
