1

CGHC010330452026 2026:CGHC:38006-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2236 of 2026

Rahul Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Romnath Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o

126/1, Ward No. 12, Near Sakshi Medical, Pendra, Gaurela-Pendra-

Marwahi Chhattisgarh (495117)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station

Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2 - Smt. Srishti Sharma W/o Shri Rahul Kumar Sahu Aged About 33

Years R/o Ward No. 12, Near Sakshi Medical, Pendra, District Gaurela-

Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner :Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate

For Respondent-State :Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate

For Respondent No.2:Mr. Ramayan Yadav, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Ramayan Yadav,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2

2.By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the petitioner

has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“1. Quash FIR No. 0060/2026 dated

18.02.2026 registered at Police Station

Katghora, District Korba, for offence under

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, against the Petitioner.

2. Quash chargesheet No. 81/2026 dated

16/17.04.2026 filed in Crime No. 3366/2026, as

well as the cognizance order dated 15.05.2026

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Katghora, taking cognizance under

Section 69 BNS and committing the case to the

Court of Sessions, and quash order dated

13.08.2026 rejecting discharge application of

the accused by Court of learned District &

Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC POCSO),

Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Special Case

No. 49/2026 and consequently quash all further

proceedings Said court. pending before the,

arising therefrom.

3. Pass such other and further order(s) as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case, in the

interest of justice.”

3.The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that FIR

No.0060/2026 dated 18.02.2026 came to be registered at Police

Station Katghora, District Korba, against the petitioner for the

3

offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”), on the complaint of

respondent No.2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the

petitioner and respondent No.2 came into contact during

departmental meetings and trainings while both were working as

Secretaries in Agricultural Produce Market Committees and, in

course of time, developed a close relationship. It was alleged that

the petitioner had established physical relations with respondent

No.2 on the assurance that he would marry her, but subsequently

did not marry her due to opposition from his family on account of

the inter-caste nature of the relationship. On the basis of the

aforesaid allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

4.After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-

sheet No.81/2026 dated 16/17.04.2026 in Crime No.3366/2026

before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Katghora, for the offence under Section 69 of the BNS. The

learned Magistrate, vide order dated 15.05.2026, took cognizance

of the offence and, noticing that the offence is exclusively triable

by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of

learned District & Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC POCSO),

Katghora, District Korba, where the matter is pending as Special

Case No.49/2026. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court

and, pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2026 passed in CRMP

No.2003/2026, approached the learned trial Court with an

application for verification and discharge. Both the petitioner and

4

respondent No.2 appeared before the learned trial Court on

10.08.2026, where respondent No.2 produced her Aadhaar card

and marriage certificate and made a statement regarding her

marriage with the petitioner. She also filed an affidavit supporting

the prayer for discharge. However, the learned trial Court, vide

order dated 13.08.2026, rejected the discharge application,

observing, inter alia, that the marriage appeared to have been

performed to evade the criminal proceedings. The said order is

also under challenge in the present petition. The present petition,

therefore, seeks quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking

cognizance, order committing the case to the Court of Sessions,

order dated 13.08.2026 rejecting the discharge application, and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

entire prosecution is founded upon the allegation that the

petitioner had physical relations with respondent No.2 on a

promise to marry, whereas the material available on record,

particularly the subsequent conduct of the parties, clearly

demonstrates that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention

on the part of the petitioner at the inception of the relationship. It is

submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were both

mature, educated and working professionals and their relationship

developed over a considerable period of time. The allegations

themselves disclose that the petitioner had expressed his

intention to marry respondent No.2 and had taken steps in that

5

direction. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner had, from

the very inception, made a false promise of marriage merely with

an intention to obtain the consent of respondent No.2 for physical

relations is wholly contrary to the material collected during

investigation.

6.It is further submitted that the subsequent conduct of the parties

constitutes a significant and clinching circumstance which goes to

the very root of the prosecution case. The petitioner and

respondent No.2 ultimately solemnised their marriage on

23.06.2026 at Arya Samaj, Bilaspur, in accordance with Hindu

rites and customs, and a marriage certificate was duly issued by

Arya Samaj Sanskar Kendra, Bilaspur. Learned counsel submits

that the marriage was not a subsequent arrangement made

merely for the purpose of defeating the criminal proceedings, as

has been observed by the learned trial Court, but was the

culmination of the intention of the parties which had existed from

the inception and which could not earlier materialise because of

opposition from the petitioner's family to the inter-caste marriage.

It is contended that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court

that the marriage was performed to evade the criminal process is

contrary to the material on record, particularly the statement and

affidavit of respondent No.2 herself.

7.Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has

categorically stated in her affidavit dated 22.07.2026 that she is

6

the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, that the dispute between

the parties has been amicably resolved and that she does not

wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the

parties now intend to live together peacefully as husband and wife

and continuation of the criminal proceedings, in such

circumstances, would serve no useful purpose and would

unnecessarily disturb their matrimonial life. Learned counsel

submits that the ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS are not

made out from the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-

sheet and, therefore, even if the prosecution material is taken at

its face value, the essential foundation of the offence is absent. It

is thus prayed that this Court, in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, may quash the entire proceedings to secure the

ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.

8.Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the FIR was

registered on the basis of specific allegations made by respondent

No.2 and, after conducting investigation, the investigating agency

found sufficient material against the petitioner and accordingly

filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 69

of the BNS. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the

FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot be

lightly brushed aside at the stage of exercise of inherent

jurisdiction, particularly when the learned Magistrate has already

7

taken cognizance and the matter has thereafter been committed

to the Court of Sessions.

9.Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that

during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner and

respondent No.2 have solemnised their marriage on 23.06.2026

and that respondent No.2 has subsequently filed an affidavit

supporting the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings. It

is also not disputed that respondent No.2 appeared before the

learned trial Court and verified the factum of marriage. Learned

State counsel submits that the effect of the subsequent marriage

and the affidavit of respondent No.2 may be considered by this

Court in accordance with law, though the prosecution had been

instituted on the basis of the allegations made by respondent No.2

and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

10.Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that

respondent No.2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed

and the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal

proceedings are quashed. It is submitted that the parties have

solemnised their marriage on 23.06.2026 at Arya Samaj, Bilaspur,

in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and respondent No.2

is presently the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Respondent

No.2 has voluntarily filed her affidavit and has also appeared

before the learned trial Court and verified the factum of marriage.

It is submitted that the dispute between the parties has been

8

amicably resolved and respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue

the criminal case any further. According to learned counsel,

continuation of the criminal proceedings would adversely affect

the matrimonial relationship of the parties and would serve no

meaningful purpose.

11.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State and

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. We have also

perused the FIR, charge-sheet, the orders passed by the learned

Courts below, the marriage certificate, the affidavit of respondent

No.2 and the other material available on record.

12.Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the

material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy

in the present case essentially revolves around the allegation that

the petitioner established physical relations with respondent No.2

on a promise to marry her. The prosecution has proceeded on the

premise that such promise was false and that the petitioner had

no intention of fulfilling the same. Therefore, the question which

assumes significance is whether the material available on record

discloses that the petitioner had, from the very inception, made a

promise of marriage which was false to his knowledge and had

made such promise with the dishonest or fraudulent intention of

obtaining the consent of respondent No.2 for the physical

relationship.

9

13.A careful consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and

the material collected during investigation shows that the

relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was not

a fleeting or isolated relationship. The parties were known to each

other through their official work and departmental meetings and,

thereafter, their interaction developed into a close personal

relationship.

14.The allegations themselves indicate that the petitioner had

expressed his intention to marry respondent No.2 and had

discussed the marriage and taken steps in that direction. The

prosecution case further indicates that the marriage could not take

place at the earlier stage because of opposition from the family of

the petitioner on account of the inter-caste nature of the proposed

marriage.

15.The legal position regarding an alleged promise to marry is by

now well settled. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of

Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that in order to constitute a false promise of

marriage, it must be established that the promise was made in

bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time

when it was given, and that such false promise had a direct nexus

with the consent of the prosecutrix to the sexual act. A mere

subsequent failure to fulfil a promise, therefore, would not, by

itself, establish that the promise was false from its inception.

10

16.The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of

Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 : 2025 INSC

782, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the distinction

between a genuine relationship which subsequently turns sour

and a promise of marriage which was false and dishonest from its

inception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the Court

is required to examine the surrounding circumstances and

conduct of the parties to determine whether there was a dishonest

intention at the inception of the alleged promise. A mere failure or

inability to marry subsequently cannot automatically convert a

consensual relationship into a criminal offence.

17.The aforesaid principles are squarely attracted to the facts of the

present case. The material available on record does not disclose

that the petitioner had no intention to marry respondent No.2 at

the inception of their relationship. On the contrary, the allegations

themselves indicate that the petitioner had expressed his intention

to marry her and had taken steps towards solemnisation of the

marriage. The subsequent solemnisation of marriage between the

very same parties on 23.06.2026, therefore, assumes

considerable significance in assessing the bona fides of the

petitioner's original intention. The circumstance that the marriage

was delayed on account of opposition from the petitioner's family

cannot, in the absence of material showing dishonest intention

from the inception, be equated with a false promise to marry.

11

18.The distinction between a false promise of marriage and a

genuine promise which subsequently could not be fulfilled for

reasons arising after the promise is of considerable importance. A

subsequent failure to marry, by itself, cannot retrospectively

establish that the promise was false from its very inception. For

attracting the penal consequences contemplated under Section

69 of the BNS on the basis of a promise to marry, the foundational

allegation must disclose that the promise was fraudulent or

deceitful at the time when it was made and that the promise was

not a bona fide expression of intention to marry. The mere fact

that circumstances subsequently intervened and the marriage did

not take place at the initially contemplated point of time would not,

without more, establish the requisite dishonest intention at the

inception. In the present case, the subsequent conduct of the

petitioner assumes particular significance. The parties ultimately

solemnised their marriage on 23.06.2026 at Arya Samaj, Bilaspur,

in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The marriage is

evidenced by a marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj

Sanskar Kendra, Bilaspur. More importantly, respondent No.2

herself has accepted the marriage and has consistently taken the

stand that she is now the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

She has not merely expressed such stand before this Court but

also appeared before the learned trial Court and verified the

marriage by producing the relevant documents. She has further

filed an affidavit stating that the dispute has been amicably

12

resolved and that she does not wish to prosecute the criminal

proceedings.

19.The factum of marriage, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, cannot be treated as an isolated subsequent

event divorced from the circumstances in which the relationship

developed. Rather, it provides substantial support to the

petitioner's contention that the intention to marry was genuine. If

the petitioner had, from the inception, intended merely to obtain

the consent of respondent No.2 by making a false promise of

marriage, the subsequent solemnisation of marriage between the

very same parties is a circumstance which materially weakens the

foundational allegation of fraudulent intention at the inception.

This Court is conscious that subsequent marriage cannot, in every

case and as a matter of absolute rule, erase an offence which

was otherwise fully constituted. However, in the present case, the

subsequent marriage has to be considered along with the nature

and duration of the relationship, the conduct of the parties, the

circumstances pleaded for non-solemnisation of marriage at the

earlier stage and the categorical stand subsequently taken by

respondent No.2.

20.It is also significant that there is no allegation in the FIR or in the

material placed before this Court suggesting that the petitioner

had no intention whatsoever to marry respondent No.2 from the

inception. On the contrary, the prosecution case itself refers to the

13

petitioner's expressed intention to marry her and the steps

allegedly taken towards marriage. The impediment projected by

respondent No.2 was opposition from the petitioner's family. Such

subsequent familial opposition, by itself, cannot be equated with a

dishonest intention existing in the mind of the petitioner at the

inception of the relationship.

21.Another important circumstance is that the parties are presently

husband and wife and respondent No.2 has categorically stated

that she desires to continue her matrimonial life with the petitioner

and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. The parties

have consciously chosen to resolve their differences and preserve

their matrimonial relationship. The criminal proceedings are

presently at the stage of pre-charge arguments. In such

circumstances, compelling the parties to undergo a full-fledged

criminal trial, when the complainant herself does not support

continuation of the proceedings and when the very foundational

allegation of a false promise is rendered doubtful by the

subsequent conduct of the petitioner, would not advance the

cause of justice.

22.We are also unable to sustain the reasoning of the learned trial

Court that the marriage between the parties was performed

merely with a view to evade the criminal process. The said

conclusion, in the facts of the present case, does not appear to be

supported by any cogent material. Respondent No.2 herself

14

appeared before the learned trial Court, produced her

identification and marriage documents and verified the factum of

marriage. She also filed an affidavit in support of the petitioner's

discharge. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the

marriage was a sham, fraudulent or otherwise fabricated

arrangement created only to frustrate the prosecution, the mere

pendency of the criminal case cannot be made the basis for

drawing an adverse inference against the validity or bona fides of

the marriage.

23.The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is undoubtedly

extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly and with

circumspection. At the same time, the provision exists to prevent

abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of

justice. The power is not intended to permit continuation of a

criminal prosecution where, on a meaningful examination of the

allegations and the undisputed subsequent circumstances, the

continuation of the proceedings would result in unnecessary

harassment and would not serve the purpose of criminal justice.

24.In the present matter, the Court is not quashing the proceedings

merely because the parties have subsequently entered into a

compromise. The case stands on a different footing. The FIR and

charge-sheet have to be examined to ascertain whether the basic

ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. When the

allegations are considered in conjunction with the admitted fact

15

that the parties have subsequently solemnised their marriage, the

consistent stand of respondent No.2, the affidavit filed by her, her

personal appearance before the trial Court, and the absence of

material indicating that the promise of marriage was dishonest or

fraudulent from its inception, the continuation of the prosecution

would not be justified.

25.The subsequent marriage is particularly relevant in the present

factual matrix because the very allegation of the prosecution is

founded upon a promise to marry. The petitioner has ultimately

performed the marriage with the same person to whom the

promise was allegedly made. Though subsequent conduct cannot

universally determine the existence or non-existence of an

offence, in the facts before us it constitutes a strong circumstance

for assessing the bona fides of the original promise. The totality of

circumstances indicates that the relationship was consensual

between two mature adults and that the eventual delay in

solemnising the marriage was attributable to family opposition

rather than to a fraudulent design on the part of the petitioner.

26.We further find that the continuance of the criminal proceedings

would have serious and undesirable consequences for the

matrimonial relationship which the parties have consciously

chosen to establish and preserve. Respondent No.2, who was the

informant in the FIR, has herself stated that she does not wish to

pursue the prosecution. She is presently residing in the

16

matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and seeks an end to

the criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, forcing the

parties to participate in a prolonged criminal trial, despite the

absence of material demonstrating dishonest intention at the

inception, would amount to permitting the criminal process to

continue for a purpose which is no longer supported even by the

complainant and which, on the material available, is unlikely to

result in a legally sustainable conviction.

27.The pendency of the charge-sheet and the order taking

cognizance do not create an absolute bar against exercise of the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Even after submission of

charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, where the Court is

satisfied that continuation of the prosecution would amount to

abuse of the process of law or that intervention is necessary to

secure the ends of justice, the inherent jurisdiction can be

exercised. The present case, in our considered view, is one such

case.

28.We are also of the view that the order dated 13.08.2026 passed

by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC

POCSO), Katghora, rejecting the discharge application cannot be

permitted to stand. The learned trial Court has proceeded on an

assumption that the marriage was performed to evade the

criminal process. Such an assumption, in the absence of

supporting material and in the face of the categorical statement

17

and affidavit of respondent No.2, cannot furnish a sufficient basis

for compelling the petitioner to face the criminal trial. The material

placed before the Court rather indicates that the marriage was a

voluntary and bona fide act of the parties.

29.Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court finds that the

essential foundation of the prosecution under Section 69 of the

BNS is not established from the allegations and material placed

on record. The facts and circumstances, particularly the conduct

of the parties and their subsequent solemnisation of marriage,

negate the allegation that the petitioner had made a false promise

of marriage with a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the

inception. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, therefore,

would not serve the ends of justice and would amount to an abuse

of the process of the Court.

30.Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the present petition

deserves to be allowed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction

under Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly, FIR No.0060/2026

dated 18.02.2026 registered at Police Station Katghora, District

Korba, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS,

charge-sheet No.81/2026 dated 16/17.04.2026 filed in Crime

No.3366/2026, the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, taking cognizance of the

offence and committing the matter to the Court of Sessions, as

well as the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned District

18

& Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC POCSO), Katghora, District

Korba, in Special Case No.49/2026 rejecting the discharge

application, are hereby quashed.

31.As a necessary consequence, all further proceedings arising out

of FIR No.0060/2026/Crime No.3366/2026, including the

proceedings pending before the learned District & Additional

Sessions Judge (FTSC POCSO), Katghora, in Special Case

No.49/2026, stand quashed and brought to an end.

32.Before parting with the matter, we clarify that the present order is

passed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, particularly the nature of the allegations, the

material collected during investigation, the subsequent

solemnisation of marriage between the parties, the categorical

stand of respondent No.2, and the absence of material

demonstrating a fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of

the petitioner at the inception of the relationship. The order shall

not be construed as laying down any general proposition that

every case involving an allegation of a false promise to marry is

liable to be quashed merely on the ground of subsequent

marriage.

33.In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The

FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, order committing the

case to the Court of Sessions, order dated 13.08.2026 rejecting

the discharge application, and all consequential proceedings

19

arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall stand

discharged from the criminal proceedings arising out of the

aforesaid FIR and charge-sheet.

34.There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu