1

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

2024:CGHC:28761

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

Ishwar Prasad Lahre S/o Shri Tikaram Lahre Aged About 29 Years (wrongly

mentioned as 33 years in Annexure A/1) R/o Village Amakoni, P.S. and Tahsil

Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Janjgir, District : Janjgir-

Champa,Chhattisgarh.

2. XYZ

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate

For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate

For Respondent No.2: Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

02/08/2024

1.With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

2.The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of

2

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

charge-sheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending before

the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO

Act), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 73/2023.

3.Brief facts of the case is that on 03.03.2023 at 06.10 pm, respondent

No.2 filed a complaint at the Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-

Champa (CG), alleging therein that she is an aspirant of P.S.C.

examination. She met with the petitioner at Ratanpur and developed

friendship with him, which led to a proposal of marriage by the petitioner

to which she agreed. It was then stated that on her accepting the

proposal, the petitioner stated to complete the education and marriage

will be performed after getting job. It was alleged that thereafter the

petitioner had performed regular sexual intercourse with her at the police

line residential quarter. Subsequently, the petitioner backed out from the

promise and threatened her for life. On complaint made by respondent

No.2, FIR No. 182/2023 has been registered against the petitioner for

offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

4.After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the

jurisdictional Court under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of the IPC, against

the petitioner. Meanwhile, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by

this Hon'ble Court in MCRC (A) No.434/2023 vide order dated

26.06.2023.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the present

case being a case where from perusal of the final report/charge-sheet

3

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

under Section 173 of CrPC, 1973, on its face no offence as alleged is

made out against the petitioner and therefore, the final report made by

the police authorities is absolutely misconceived and unsustainable in

law. He further submits that the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful

and is an abuse of process of law on account of the failure to explain the

long and unexplained delay in registering the FIR on 03.03.2023. He

further submits that the complaint and the material collected in the

charge- sheet even remaining un-controverted do not make out a case

attracting ingredients of the offence alleged and therefore, the present

case falls within the exceptional situations, more particularly as carved

out in the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in 1992 Suppl.

(1) SCC 335 {paragraphs 102 (1) and (3)}.

“(1). Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out a case against

the accused.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

FIR or com plaint and the evidence collected in support

of the same do not disclose the commission of any

offence and make out a case against the accused.”

6.He further submits that while dealing with a case of rape by obtaining

consent of the girl under the false promise to marriage the Hon'ble

4

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

Supreme Court way back in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka,

reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, has assessed the nuances of such cases

and has cautioned for evaluation of certain aspects decisive in nature so

far as veracity of the complaints are concerned while exercising the

inherent jurisdiction by the High Courts. He further submits that in light of

the above referred proposition of law, the allegation of the petitioner

committing sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage from

03.04.2017 to 28.11.2022, i.e., for almost six years in which the

prosecutrix could not assess the alleged ill intention of the petitioner of

making a false promise is to be assessed, which in fact turns out nothing

short of so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient

ground for proceeding against the petitioner, as carved out in paragraphs

102 (3) and (5), respectively in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), Hon'ble

Madhya Pradesh High Court in a similar case between Amar Singh

Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2023 SCC Online

MP 278 has held as under:

"..........Near about more than one year time is

sufficient time for a prudent woman to realize as to

whether the promise of marriage made by the

petitioner is false from its very inception or there is

a possibility of breach of promise. When the

petitioner was not acceding to her request for

marriage, then why she continued with

relationship with him till lodging of the FIR. Thus, it

is clear that at the most, it can be said that it is a

5

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

case of breach of promise and, therefore, it cannot

be said that the promise made by the petitioner

was obtained under fear or misconception of fact.

7.He also submits that petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a consensual

relationship for almost six years and the prosecutrix despite being an

educated and adult lady permitting such relationship for such a long

period clearly establishes that the relationship between them was

consensual in nature hardly attracting the ingredients of the offence under

Section 376 of IPC. On these grounds, it is prayed that this Court may

kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

of the CrPC, 1973 and quash the charge-sheet and the entire criminal

proceedings against the petitioner.

8.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1

contended that after due investigation the petitioner has been charge-

sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are

sufficient to put the petitioner at trial and he is standing trial also and

considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no

prima-facie case against the petitioner for standing trial is made out. He

further contended that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the

CrPC is extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed

particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put

the accused person to trial.

6

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

9.Reliance has been placed in the matter of State of Orissa & Ors. Vs.

Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547; 2012 2 SCC (Cri) 506

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that :

“7. It is true that the inherent powers vested in the

High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very

wide. Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer

arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act

according to whims or caprice. This extra- ordinary

power has to be exercised sparingly with

circumspection and as far as possible, for extra-

ordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint

or the first information report, taken on its face

value and accepted in their entirety do not

constitute the offence alleged. It needs little

emphasis that unless a case of gross abuse of

power is made out against those incharge of

investigation, the High Court should be loath to

interfere at the early/premature stage of

investigation.

13. The High Court has also adversely commented

upon the progress of the preliminary inquiry and

has recorded that no new material has been placed

on record by the Vigilance Cell. This has been

recorded without having regard to the fact that the

7

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

High Court by another order, dated 5th September

2005, had, by way of an interim order, directed the

State Government not to take any coercive steps

against the respondent, with the result that there

was no occasion for the department concerned to

bring to the fore any material to unravel the truth. It

is also pertinent to note here that the High Court

had itself, by order dated 18th July, 2005 directed

the completion of inquiry within a set time-frame of

twelve weeks, which was subsequently interjected

by an interim order and finally the entire

investigation/inquiry came to be quashed by the

impugned judgment. It seems incongruous that in

the first instance the court set into motion the

process of law only to ultimately quash it on the

specious plea that it would cause unnecessary

embarrassment to the respondent.

14. For all these reasons, in our opinion, High

Court's interference with the investigation was

totally unwarranted and therefore, the impugned

order cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow

the appeal, quash and set aside the impugned

judgment and restore the investigation initiated

against the respondent and direct the Vigilance Cell

8

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

of the State to proceed with and complete the

investigation expeditiously, in accordance with law.”

10. Further reliance has been placed in the matter of Jeffrey J. Diermeier

& Another Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC

243, while exercising the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the

High Court under Section 482 of the Code, has observed as follows :-

“20. …………….The Section itself envisages three

circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction

may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order

under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of

Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay

down any inflexible rule which would govern the

exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court

under the said provision is very wide but is not

unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully

and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It

needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction

does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court

to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists

to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce

injustice.”

9

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

11.He further contended that as the charge-sheet has already been filed in

this matter and the criminal proceedings is pending before the trial Court,

the petitioner can move application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for

discharge and if the same application has not been allowed then the

petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing revision against the same

order and on this count also the petition deserves to be dismissed at this

stage.

12.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that after due

investigation, the jurisdictional police has submitted charge-sheet against

the petitioner in which there are serious allegations against the petitioner.

He further contended that all submissions raised on behalf of the

petitioner relate to question of fact, that can be considered during the

course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in

proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC as all ingredients of the aforesaid

offences are available to put the petitioner to trial, as such, it is the case

where the petition deserves to be dismissed.

13.I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considered

their submissions made herein above and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

14.The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is

well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-

sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and

Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of

cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR

10

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in

exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C.

15.In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of

Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that

those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the

rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:

“(1) Where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information

Report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under

Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2)

of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in

support of the same do not disclose the commission

11

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

of any offence and make out a case against the

accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a

non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a

Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of

the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

on the basis of which no prudent person can every

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)

to the institution and continuance of the

proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of

the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding

is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a

12

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

view to spite him due to private and personal

grudge.”

16.In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC

(Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999)

3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E

Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly

held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of

the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was

held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and

appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not

hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that

while considering such petitions the Courts should be very

circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy

about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out,

the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be

quashed.

17.In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex 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 of the Cr.P.C. is

very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be

13

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

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.

18.Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered

view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner

relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this

Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation

of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at

this stage.

19.In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC

540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version

cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala ides

of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage

reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11)

“11......It would not be proper for the High Court to

analyse the case of the complainant in the light of

all probabilities in order to determine whether a

conviction would be sustainable and on such

premises arrive at a conclusion that the

proceedings are to be quashed. It would be

14

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

erroneous to assess the material before it and

conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded

with.”

20.Reverting to the facts of this case, prima facie it is apparent that false

promise has been made by the petitioner/accused to the complainant

that after getting job he will marry with her and established physical

relation with her. Prima facie, it is not a case of breach of promise.

21.From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and

appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of

the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held

that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with

malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private

and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only

in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in

catena of decisions.

22.From the perusal of impugned FIR/charge-sheet, which discloses the

cognizable offence and the only ground which has been argued by

learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the FIR

by the victim/complainant without any plausible explanation cannot be

15

CrMP No. 2430 of 2023

a good ground for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet or criminal

proceedings.

23.In the instant case, from the perusal of the record, prima facie it cannot

be said that no cognizable offence is made out and further, it appears

to be a case of sexual exploitation. The present petition does not fall in

any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned charge-sheet

and criminal proceedings. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the

charge-sheet and criminal proceedings.

24.In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be

dismissed.

25.Accordingly, the present CrMP is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge

Vasant