Salim RaZa Memon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

{Cause Title	... Respondent(s) Taken from Case Information System}
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Ananya Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent(s)No. 1.	: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

23/06/2026

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Ananya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1.

¶17

2

¶18

2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, the BNSS ), the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheet No. 46/2026 dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) along-with order of charges framed dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P/2) and the entire Criminal Case No. 15/2026 in Crime No. 51/2026 pending before Additional Sessions Judge FTC (POCSO) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, for the alleged commission of offence(s) under Section 62,64, 64 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, the BNS ) and Section 6,7, 8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short, the POCSO Act ) against the petitioner.

¶19

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim made a written complaint at Police Station, Kondagaon, alleging that the petitioner used to say to the victim that nobody will marry her and he will keep her as a "Keep". It is further alleged that on 09.11.2025 at about 7:00 p.m., the petitioner in the evening called the victim pretending that there is some work and took her in his car towards forest of village Karsing about 2 KMs away from his village Bahmani and tried to forcibly make physical relationship by disrobing her upon which the victim resisted and warned that she will inform the said incident to everyone in the village and commit suicide. It is further alleged that the petitioner left her and the victim came back to home and due to fear, she did not disclose anything to anyone. On the basis of the said complaint of the victim , Police Station Kotwali, District Kondadgaon registered a crime against the petitioner under Crime No.51/2026 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 62, 64 and 64 (2) of the BNS and Section 6, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and started investigation.

¶20

4. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim who belongs to a Muslim community, had married to a Hindu

¶21

3

¶22

boy when she was a minor. The brother of the victim was an employee of the petitioner. The FIR in question has been lodged on false and baseless grounds only to take vengeance, as previously an FIR was lodged by father of the complainant for offences under Section 137 (2), 87, 64(2)(D) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, against the husband of the victim. The petitioner, being an influential person of his community, only had helped the father of the victim when the victim was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Previously during the period of incident, the members of the Jamat Committee on the request of father of the victim, intervened and tried to explain the victim as to what she was doing was wrong, and since the petitioner was the employer of the brother of the present victim/complainant, as such the present petitioner also went to make the victim understand. Even the victim’s father and mother, in their affidavit dated 13.04.2026 have stated that their daughter i.e. the victim had lodged a false FIR against the present petitioner.

¶23

5. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that another co-accused, namely Aslam Khan, involved in the present offence, had filed a petition being Cr.M.P. No. 1251/2026 in which this Hon’ble Court had been pleased to grant interim protection vide order dated 13.05.2026 till the next date of hearing i.e. 08.07.2026 and as such, similar relief may also be granted in this petition.

¶24

6. Mr. Shrivastava next submits that the the impugned charge-sheet, the consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner is bad in law as even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, it smacks of vengeance and malafide intention. No prima facie case worth further investigation or even trial is made out against the present petitioner and in view of the well settled principles of ław as established by the Hon'ble

¶25

4

¶26

Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions right from the recent case of Digambar & Anr. v. State of Maharastra & Anr . reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3836 and Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 11 SCC 130, Asoke Basak v. State of Mahasrashtra & Ors . Reported in (2010) 10 SCC 660, V.P.Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 361 and in the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, which clearly held that, if the entire case is taken as it is on their face value, if there is no prima facie case worth trial is made out for the alleged commission of offence, quashing of FIR is valid and reasonable.

¶27

7. Further, there are serious contradictions in the complaint given by the victim/complainant in the FIR lodged vide Crime No. 51/2026 and as such the victim is contradicting her own complaint and further the FIR seems to be an exaggerated version of the incident and is bereft of merit. The complaint nowhere suggests that any act or attempt of rape has been tried by the present petitioner and only suggests that the present complaint was lodged only to the alleged harassment faced by the present complainant as to intimidating her on the pretext of running away with a Hindu boy, whereas, on the contrary the FIR lodged is an unrealistic version of the act occurred and only to take vengeance against the present petitioner through criminal prosecution. Moreover, the words as quoted in the FIR "तुमसे कोई शादी नहीं करेगा, तुझे में रखैल बनाकर रखूँगा" nowhere satisfies the ingredient of rape as defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and is allegedly only an act of criminal intimidation because what is required for constituting rape is an overt act in the form of physical abuse, therefore the present FIR is false, fabricated and a totally baseless case. There is delay in lodging of FIR of

¶28

5

¶29

almost 2 months and the FIR has been lodged on the basis of concocted story. Hence, the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶30

8. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on a complaint being made by the victim, when prima facie commission of a cognizable offence was found, the Police registered the FIR and started investigation. In the investigation, ample evidence has been collected which suggests that the petitioner is involved in commission of the offence. The petitioner will have the opportunity to rebut the allegations before the learned trial Court and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage. So far as grant of interim relief to the other coaccused Aslam Khan is considered, since the said accused was an Advocate and his case is distinguishable from that of the present petitioner, the present petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage.

¶31

9. Placing reliance upon the settled principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, learned State counsel submits that where the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. As such, this petition be dismissed and the petitioner be relegated to raise all factual and legal defences before the trial Court during the course of trial.

¶32

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶33

11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a chargesheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable

¶34

6

¶35

offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR 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. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

¶36

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters 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 Supreme 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. A 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.

¶37

13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional cases. The Court emphasized that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a

¶38

7

¶39

cognizable offence. At this stage, the Court cannot assess the reliability of allegations, undertake a detailed examination of evidence, conduct a mini-trial, or interfere with an ongoing investigation except in rare cases where no offence is disclosed.

¶40

14. Reiterating these settled principles in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, and consideration of the defence of the accused fall within the domain of the trial Court. Criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because the accused raises a plausible defence. The Court further held that quashing is justified only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and unimpeachable character, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains unrefuted by the complainant/prosecution, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶41

15. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance as to warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prosecution case is founded upon a written complaint lodged by the complainant on 31.01.2026 and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, MLC report, and various documentary evidences collected. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that a case is made out against the petitioner.

¶42

16. The principal contention of the petitioner is that he being an influential person of his society, tried to convince the victim to leave her husband

¶43

8

¶44

who belonged to a different community and in vengeance, the present FIR has been lodged. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the victim, in her statement under Section 180 of the BNSS made before the the police has merely stated that the petitioner attempted to commit rape upon her, whereas in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has tried to make improvement stating that the petitioner had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and as such, the entire prosecution case appears to be false. However, upon careful reading of the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, it transpires that that the victim had eloped with one Pramod Markam when she was a minor and stayed with her for a brief period for which an offence was registered against Pramod Markam also and he was confined in jail from 15.03.2025 to 30.09.2025. The victim helped her husband for his release and after serving his sentence, when he came out of the jail, she married with him on 29.01.2026. The petitioner had objected to their relationship because he was of different faith and had threatened the victim of dire consequences. The case of the co-accused Aslam Khan, involved in this case, is distinguishable on facts, as he was an Advocate and there is no direct allegation against him as is available in respect of the present petitioner.

¶45

17. Upon a cumulative consideration of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, this Court is satisfied that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, if taken at their face value and accepted as correct for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the competent criminal Court. The prosecution case is not founded merely upon vague or omnibus allegations. The penal provisions invoked by the prosecution is a matter which can only be conclusively determined after appreciation

¶46

9

¶47

of evidence during trial.

¶48

18. At this stage, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner cannot be examined in a petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings. The law is well settled that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not function as a trial Court and cannot undertake a roving enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability or admissibility of the evidence collected during investigation.

¶49

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be characterized as so absurd, inherently improbable, or manifestly frivolous that no prudent person could reasonably conclude that they disclose a prima facie case for proceeding further.

¶50

20. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet, the order dated 17.04.2026 framing charges as well as the entire Criminal Case No. 15/2016 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, (POCSO), Kondagaon, for the alleged offences under Sections 62, 64, 64(2) of the BNS and Section 6, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, against the petitioner. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed .

¶51

10

¶52

21. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court. The trial Court shall proceed independently and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before it.

¶53

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Amit

¶56

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed byAMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.29 17:54:23 +0530

Salim RaZa Memon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim RaZa Memon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Parmeshwar Prasad Jaiswal

Krishna Kumar Janghel Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Ramphal Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chameli Bai Vs the Chief Municipal Officer

Smt. Smriti Jain Vs Amresh Jain

Sheikh Shamshad Vs Sarita Devi ( Now Dead) through Legal Heirs 1A. Bhavesh