Amlon Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 388 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Amlon Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                         1




                                                                   2026:CGHC:11780-DB
                                                                                   NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.03.13
10:07:11 +0530



                                              CRMP No. 715 of 2026

                      Amlon Tirkey S/o Mangal Sai Tirkey Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village
                      Jamdi, PS-Lundra, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
                                                                            ... Applicant
                                                      versus
                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S- Gandhi Nagar District-
                      Sarguja (C.G.)
                      2 - Sukrita Toppo D/o Manohar Toppo Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
                      Dakaie, P.S- Lundra Dist- Sarguja (C.G.)
                                                                         ... Respondent(s)

                      For Applicant      : Mr.H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
                      For Respondent     : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate
                      No.1/State


                                    Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                   Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

                                                 Order on Board

                      12.03.2026

1. Heard Mr.H.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the applicant as well

as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for

respondent No.1/State.

2. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 528 of the

BNSS with following reliefs:-

"Hence prayed that the Hon'ble Court be please to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 332/2025 dated 09/06/2025 registered under Section 376(2-n) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G.), along with quashment of the charge-sheet No. 232/2025 dated 09/07/2025 filed pursuant thereto and the cognizance order dated 04/09/2025 passed by the learned Session Judge, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 138/2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom pending before Additional Session Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja., in exercising the inherent powers under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in the present matter due to personal differences

arising out of a failed consensual relationship. The families of the

victim and the applicant shared a close-knit social relationship and

use to visiting each other's residences. The applicant and the

victim came into contact with each other in the year 2019.

Significantly both the parties were adults at the relevant time.

Their acquaintance gradually developed into a voluntary romantic

relationship. From the year 2019 onwards, both the applicant and

the victim were in regular and sustained communication through

calls and WhatsApp chats. The said communications

unambiguously establish mutual affection, voluntary emotional

attachment, and consensual Intimacy. In October 2019, the

parties met at Ambikapur, wherein physical relations were

established between them. It is submitted that the said physical

intimacy was entirely consensual in nature arising organically out

of the mutual love and emotional bonding shared between two

consenting adults, and was not the product of any

misrepresentation, force, or false promise.

4. It is a matter of significant importance that from the year 2019 until

June 2025, the victim never lodged any complaint, grievance, or

representation before the Police, Women Cell, any Judicial

Forum, or even before any family member through legal recourse.

Such prolonged and inexplicable inaction is wholly incompatible

with the conduct of a victim who has been subjected to sexual

assault or criminal coercion. The FIR in question was registered

on 09.06.2025, after an inordinate, unexplained, and extraordinary

delay of nearly six years from the date of the alleged first incident.

The FIR is conspicuously silent with regard to any explanation for

this exceptional delay. Critically, there is no allegation in the FIR or

charge-sheet that the applicant was subjecting the victim to

continuous threats, intimidation, or coercion during the Intervening

period, nor has any material been placed on record to justify the

victim's silence for period extending over six years. Such delay,

standing unexplained on the face of record, is itself a compelling

circumstance warranting judicial scrutiny. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned FIR

and charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients

constituting the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC. Even if the

entire prosecution case is accepted at face value, the allegations

disclose a consensual relationship between two adults and do not

prima facie establish absence of consent. The fundamental

ingredient of "against her will" or "without her consent" is

conspicuously absent from the material collected during

investigation. He further submits that the alleged first incident

pertains to October 2019, whereas the FIR has been lodged only

on 09.06.2025. The FIR is completely silent as to what prevented

the victim from approaching authorities during this prolonged

period. Such abnormal and unexplained delay, coupled with

continued voluntary association between the parties, strikes at the

root of the prosecution story and indicates afterthought and

embellishment. The Whats App chats exchanged between the

parties unequivocally reflect voluntary emotional involvement,

affectionate exchanges and sustained communication over the

years. The victim and the applicant were acquainted to each other

since 2016 and the conduct of the victim in continuing the

relationship for several years after the alleged incident negates

the theory of absence of consent. He also submits that it is settled

law that to constitute rape on the pretext of marriage, the

prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had no intention

to marry from the very inception and that the promise was a mere

tool of deception. The charge-sheet is bereft of any material

showing fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship. At

the best, the case reflects a failed relationship, which cannot be

criminalized. He contended that the medical examination does not

indicate any signs of physical violence, external injury or internal

trauma suggestive of forcible intercourse. While conviction may

rest on sole testimony in appropriate cases, in a matter where

there is long unexplained delay and admitted relationship,

absence of corroborative medical evidence assumes significance

at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction. He further

contended that the stigma attached to a prosecution under

Section 376 IPC is grave and irreversible. In absence of prima

facie material, compelling the applicant to face trial would defeat

the very purpose of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court. It is

evident from the circumstances of this case that the impugned FIR

has been registered as a direct consequence of the subsequent

breakdown of the relationship and the personal differences and

grievances arising therefrom. The registration of an FIR alleging

sexual assault, in a situation where the parties were involved in a

voluntary and prolonged romantic relationship, and where the

complaint is filed after a delay of nearly six years following the

breakdown of the relationship, patently betrays the misuse of

criminal proceedings. He also contended that continuation of

criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances enumerated

hereinabove would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice and

constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law. The applicant is

subjected to severe mental agony, irreparable reputational

damage, and acute social stigma on account of the pendency of

the present false and malicious prosecution. The inherent powers

of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

SurakshaSanhita, 2023, are specifically designed to prevent such

abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. As

such, the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance dated

4.9.2025 and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom pending

before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur deserve

to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for

respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the FIR

discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended with petition.

8. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).

Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is

warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any

offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are

manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted.

9. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires the applicant

and the victim used to visit each other's homes and talk. In 2019,

Amlon Tirki told the victim that he liked her and wanted to marry

her. Whenever he came home on leave, he would occasionally

take her out for walks. During that time, he forcibly pressured her

to have physical relations with him, but she refused, saying that

they would only have physical relations after marriage. On

09.10.2019, he lured her with the promise of marriage, took her to

Tulsi Lodge, Ambikapur, and had physical relations with her. After

this, Amlon Tirki continued to physically exploit her by taking her

to various places. During this time, the victim repeatedly asked

Amlon Tirki to marry her, but he would say that he had not told his

family yet, saying he had a long way to go. He would tell them

when the time came and that he would marry her. Whenever she

asked him to marry her, Amlon Tirki would make excuses and

avoid the conversation. In November 2024, Amlon Tirki proposed

to marry another woman. When she learned about it, she refused.

He filed a false police complaint against her, alleging that she was

blackmailing him with six lakh rupees. In this way, Amlon Tirki

continued to have physical relations with her from 2019 to 2024,

under the false pretext of marriage.

10. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has

observed that the power of quashing should be exercised

sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While

examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the

Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or

otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of

wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has

emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the

F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the

allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable

offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

11. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss

& Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the

Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law

that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High

Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to

be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and

allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in

the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable

offence or not.

12. Having perused the contents of the FIR lodged by the

complainant/respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered

opinion that, prima facie, the allegations disclose the commission

of a cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that no

offence is made out warranting interference at this stage. The

present petition does not fall within the parameters laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercising inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR and

charge-sheet.

13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

                      Sd/-                                  Sd/- Sd/-     Sd

              (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                  (Ramesh Sinha)
                     Judge                                Chief Justice




Bablu