The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of sexual exploitation by a public official, even when contested as consensual, cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage merely on the basis of defence evidence. The judgment underscores that courts must not conduct mini-trials when evaluating petitions for quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), is accused of sexually exploiting a female tenant who was in a vulnerable state following her husband’s critical illness. The complainant alleges that the petitioner, who was also her landlord, used his official position and emotional leverage to establish and maintain non-consensual sexual relations between February and September 2025. She further claims he threatened to release private photographs and videos if she reported the abuse.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 12.09.2025: FIR No. 724/2025 registered at Police Station Tikrapara under Section 64(2)(m) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
- 23.09.2025: Petitioner granted anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur
- 09.11.2025: Charge-sheet filed by investigating agency
- 11.11.2025: Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 42712/2025
- Post-cognizance: Case committed to Sessions Court as Session Trial No. 428/2025
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and subsequent trial proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false, consensual, and motivated by revenge after a financial dispute.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether allegations of sexual exploitation by a public official, even if contested on grounds of consent and delay in reporting, can be quashed at the pre-trial stage under Section 528 of the BNSS when a prima facie case is disclosed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the relationship was consensual, citing call detail records showing frequent communication initiated by the complainant, joint hotel stays, and financial transactions. It was argued that the FIR was lodged only after the complainant’s demand to transfer the petitioner’s flat was refused, indicating mala fide intent. Reliance was placed on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh to challenge the absence of preliminary inquiry and on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that the case fell within the exception of fabricated allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 64(2)(m) and Section 351(3) of the BNS, involving abuse of official position and exploitation of vulnerability. It emphasized that the investigating agency had collected documentary evidence, witness statements, and travel records, and that the trial court had independently found a prima facie case. The State argued that contradictions and defence evidence are matters for trial, not quashing proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled jurisprudence under Article 226 and Section 528 of the BNSS, reaffirming the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. It held that the power to quash must be exercised sparingly and only where allegations are inherently improbable, legally unsustainable, or mala fide.
"The High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of evidence at the stage of quashing proceedings."
The Court noted that the complainant’s allegations were specific: exploitation of vulnerability due to her husband’s illness, misuse of official position, threats of dissemination of private material, and repeated sexual encounters under duress. These facts, even if contested, prima facie disclose offences under the BNS.
The petitioner’s reliance on consensual conduct, call records, and financial transactions was rejected as matters of defence requiring evidentiary appreciation during trial. The Court emphasized that consent obtained under coercion, threat, or abuse of power is not valid under Section 351(3) of the BNS, and the complainant’s vulnerability is a critical factor.
The absence of preliminary inquiry was held to be legally permissible under Lalita Kumari, as the information disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court also noted that the trial court’s decision to take cognizance and commit the case to Sessions Court further validated the existence of a prima facie case.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that allegations of sexual exploitation by a public official, even if contested on grounds of consent, cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage if they prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The matter must proceed to trial for full adjudication of facts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quashing Is Not a Substitute for Trial
- Practitioners must avoid filing quashing petitions solely to delay trial on the basis of defence evidence
- Courts will not entertain arguments on credibility, motive, or consent unless the allegations are legally unsustainable
- Any petition seeking quashing must demonstrate that the FIR, on its face, fails to disclose an offence under the BNS
Vulnerability and Abuse of Power Are Central to Section 351(3) BNS
- The relationship of authority (landlord-official) and vulnerability (ill spouse) are material factors in establishing coercion
- Consent cannot be presumed merely because of prior intimacy or communication
- Financial transactions or joint travel do not negate allegations of exploitation if power imbalance exists
Preliminary Inquiry Is Not Mandatory in Cognizable Cases
- Police are not required to conduct preliminary inquiries before registering FIRs where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence
- Lalita Kumari remains binding: registration is mandatory upon receipt of credible information
- Delay in filing FIR is a matter for trial, not grounds for quashing unless proven to be fabricated
