Dismissed¶41

Anukesh Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Mar 2026CRMP/778/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CRMP No. 778 of 2026; decided 18.03.2026; Ramesh Sinha, CJ (with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J). Quashment petition rejected for FIR 28/2026, charge-sheet 49/2026 and Session Case 54/2026 under Section 69 BNS 2023 (relations on pretext of marriage, complainant married woman aged about 21). Prima facie cognizable offence found; consent, delay and alleged false implication deferred to trial; no quashing once charge-sheet filed. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, which requires adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led before the competent trial Court; no ground warrants interference with the proceedings. ¶40

Anukesh Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR No. 28/2026, charge-sheet/Final Report No. 49/2026 and the resulting Session Case No. 54/2026 (Section 69 BNS 2023) should be quashed on the grounds that both parties were previously in a consensual relationship, were aware of each other's marital status, no promise of marriage was made, there was delay in lodging the complaint, and the complainant had earlier lodged a similar case against another person which ended in acquittal (alleged false implication). +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

At this stage it is not permissible for the Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to undertake a meticulous appreciation of disputed questions of fact or to examine the probative value of the material on record.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner's submissions on consent, delay and alleged false implication pertain essentially to his defence and are matters to be established during trial.ratio¶40
Applying the settled legal position relied upon by the Court, criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed when the allegations, taken at their face value, constitute an offence and the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, CRMP No. 778 of 2026 (judgment dated 18.03.2026; per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, bench including Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.): Petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 28/2026 dated 09.01.2026 (P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur), Charge-sheet/Final Report No. 49/2026 dated 27.01.2026 and Session Case No. 54/2026 for offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - arising from a complaint that the petitioner established physical relations with a married complainant without consent on the pretext of marriage - dismissed. Holding: the allegations disclose prima facie commission of a cognizable offence requiring adjudication before the trial Court; at this stage the Court will not undertake a meticulous appreciation of disputed facts or examine probative value of the material; the defences of consent, delay and alleged false implication are matters to be established during trial; criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed where allegations taken at face value constitute an offence and a charge-sheet has been filed.

2026:CGHC:12840-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 778 of 2026

¶6

MANPREET KAUR

¶7

Digitally signed byMANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.19 10:43:47 +0530

¶8

Anukesh Ratre S/o Late Raju Ratre Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Barbhatha, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Xyz (Details Of The Respondent No. 2 Is Given In Envelop Attached With The Memo Of Petition)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶15

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

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

18.03.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No.1 / State.

¶20

¶21

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶22

“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. No. 28/2026 dated 09.01.2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the commission of offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by respondent no.2 herein against the petitioner.

¶23

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the Charge-sheet/ Final Report No. 49/2026 dated 27.01.2026 filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the Commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶24

3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the Session Case No. 54/2026 titled as State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Anukesh Ratre pending before the Court of learned Upper Session Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for trail after taking cognizance on 12.02.2026.

¶25

4. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.”

¶26

Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this petitioner are

¶27

that the respondent No.2/complainant is a major woman aged about 21 years, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2022 with her husband, and out of the said wedlock one minor daughter has been born. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 were known to each other since long, as both belonged to the same village i.e. Village Barbhatha, Police Station Nawagarh, District

¶28

¶29

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of a written complaint dated 09.01.2026 lodged by respondent No.2 at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that on 19.11.2025 the petitioner established physical relations with her without her consent on the pretext of marriage, Crime No. 28/2026 was registered for offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2026, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter chargesheet dated 27.01.2026 was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, where the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 669/2026 and subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions.

¶30

Upon committal, the learned Sessions Court took cognizance on 12.02.2026 and registered Session Case No. 54/2026, fixing the matter for consideration on charge. The petitioner had earlier been granted bail by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur vide order dated 02.02.2026 in Bail Application No. 215/2026 and has been complying with all the conditions imposed therein. The present revision/ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR, charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings on the grounds, inter alia, that both parties were previously in a consensual relationship, were fully aware of each other’s marital status, and no promise of marriage was ever made by the

¶31

¶32

petitioner. It is further contended that the complainant had earlier lodged a similar criminal case against another person which culminated in acquittal, and therefore the present prosecution is alleged to be a case of false implication warranting interference for securing the ends of justice.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings are manifestly illegal, arbitrary and amount to abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the respondent No.2/complainant is a major and married woman who was admittedly in a prior consensual relationship with the petitioner and was fully aware that both of them were already married and living separately with their respective spouses, thereby ruling out any possibility of a promise of marriage. It is further submitted that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the entire prosecution case has been set in motion after an inordinate and unexplained delay, which casts serious doubt on its genuineness. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to personal animosity and ulterior motives, particularly in view of the victim having earlier lodged a similar criminal case against another person which ultimately resulted in acquittal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, has already been granted bail by the competent Court and is complying with all conditions imposed

¶34

¶35

upon him. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice, and hence the same deserve to be quashed .

¶36

Learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation clearly discloses prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant on 09.01.2026, the police registered a case and conducted a fair and thorough investigation, during which the victim was medically examined at SIMS Hospital and relevant articles including vaginal slides and wearing apparel were duly seized and preserved for chemical examination. The statements of the victim and other material witnesses were recorded, the place of occurrence was inspected in the presence of the forensic team and a detailed spot map was prepared. The accused was apprehended, medically examined and the articles connected with the incident, including the motorcycle allegedly used, were seized in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the investigation proceedings were videographed and documented through the e-evidence application and, upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was found indicating commission of the offence, pursuant to which charge-sheet No. 49/2026 dated 27.01.2026 was filed before the competent Court. Learned State counsel therefore submits that at this stage, when the material on record discloses a prima facie

¶37

¶38

case, the matter deserves to be tried on merits by the trial Court.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶40

Upon perusal of the record, particularly the FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, which requires adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led before the competent trial Court. At this stage, it is not permissible for this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to undertake a meticulous appreciation of disputed questions of fact or to examine the probative value of the material on record. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertain essentially to the defence of consent, delay and alleged false implication, which are matters to be established during trial. In view of the settled legal position that criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed when the allegations, taken at their face value, constitute an offence and the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference.

¶41

Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶42

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶43

Manpreet

Anukesh Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anukesh Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Anita Rathore

Suresh Tandi Vs Abijit Mandal

Francisca Beck Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Shukla (Social Worker) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Devprasad Jaiswal

Kshitij Ramteke Vs Shrimati Vinita Ramteke