The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of sexual offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of claims of consensual relations or delay, where a prima facie case is disclosed. The judgment underscores the principle that factual disputes regarding consent, motive, and credibility must be resolved at trial, not through pre-trial intervention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Anukesh Ratre, aged 23, is accused of committing sexual intercourse with respondent No. 2, a married woman aged 21, without her consent on 19.11.2025, on the pretext of marriage. The complainant, who was married since 2022 and had a minor daughter, filed a written complaint on 09.01.2026 with Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, leading to the registration of Crime No. 28/2026 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and complainant were residents of the same village, Village Barbhatha, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa
- Both parties were aware of each other’s marital status and were living separately from their respective spouses
- The complainant had previously lodged a similar criminal case against another individual, which ended in acquittal
- The alleged incident occurred on 19.11.2025, but the complaint was filed only on 09.01.2026 - a delay of over six weeks
- The complainant was medically examined at SIMS Hospital on 10.01.2026; vaginal slides and clothing were seized and preserved
- The petitioner’s motorcycle was seized as an article connected with the incident
- Investigation was videographed using the e-evidence application
- The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2026 and medically examined
Procedural History
- 19.11.2025: Alleged incident of non-consensual sexual intercourse
- 09.01.2026: Written complaint filed by complainant at Police Station Sarkanda
- 20.01.2026: Petitioner arrested
- 27.01.2026: Charge-sheet No. 49/2026 filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur
- 12.02.2026: Court of Sessions took cognizance and registered Session Case No. 54/2026
- 02.02.2026: Petitioner granted bail by Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Bail Application No. 215/2026
- 18.03.2026: Present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- FIR No. 28/2026 dated 09.01.2026
- Charge-sheet No. 49/2026 dated 27.01.2026
- Session Case No. 54/2026 pending before the Court of Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur
The Parties' Positions / Positions Before This Court
The petitioner contends that:
- The relationship was consensual and no promise of marriage was ever made
- Both parties were aware of each other’s marital status
- The delay in lodging the complaint is unexplained and casts doubt on the genuineness of the allegation
- The complainant has a history of filing false complaints, as evidenced by a prior acquittal
- The prosecution is motivated by personal animosity
The State contends that:
- The investigation was thorough, with medical examination, seizure of evidence, and videography
- The charge-sheet discloses prima facie evidence of an offence under Section 69 BNS
- The Court cannot evaluate credibility or probative value at the quashing stage
- The matter must proceed to trial for full adjudication
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations, even if contested on grounds of consent, delay, and prior acquittal of a similar complaint, constitute a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, such that quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings is warranted at the pre-trial stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS, which requires non-consensual sexual intercourse. He emphasized that the complainant was a married woman who was fully aware of the petitioner’s marital status, and that the relationship was consensual. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue against automatic arrest and State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to highlight the need for scrutiny of delayed complaints. He further contended that the prior acquittal in a similar case against another person indicates a pattern of false implication, making the prosecution an abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel submitted that the investigation was conducted in strict compliance with procedure, including medical examination, seizure of physical evidence, and videography. He argued that the charge-sheet contains sufficient material to establish a prima facie case under Section 69 BNS. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa to assert that the Court must not delve into the merits of the defence at the quashing stage. He emphasized that the existence of a consensual relationship is a defence to be proved at trial, not a ground for quashing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled legal position that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. It reiterated that quashing is impermissible when the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose a cognizable offence and the investigation has resulted in a charge-sheet.
"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 Court noted that the complainant’s allegations - that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her without her consent on the pretext of marriage - prima facie fall within the ambit of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by a man with a woman without her consent, including by deceitful means.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the delay in lodging the complaint and the prior acquittal as grounds for quashing. It held that delay may be a factor for the trial court to consider in assessing credibility, but cannot be grounds for pre-trial dismissal. Similarly, the existence of a prior complaint against another person, even if resulting in acquittal, does not ipso facto render the current complaint false or malicious.
The Court emphasized that the defence of consent, awareness of marital status, and absence of a promise of marriage are factual issues that require examination of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and evaluation of medical and forensic reports - all of which are the exclusive domain of the trial court.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed as the allegations, on their face, disclose a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The matter shall proceed to trial. The petitioner’s bail status remains unaffected, and he is directed to continue complying with all conditions imposed by the Sessions Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Must Be Proved at Trial, Not Assumed at Quashing
- Practitioners must not rely on claims of consensual relations alone to seek quashing of FIRs under Section 69 BNS
- The burden of proving consent lies with the accused and must be established through evidence during trial
- Mere assertion of mutual understanding or prior relationship is insufficient to defeat a prima facie case
Delay Alone Is Not a Ground for Quashing
- Unexplained delays in lodging complaints must be addressed during trial, not as a basis for pre-trial dismissal
- Courts will not presume fabrication of allegations solely due to delay, especially where forensic evidence is preserved
- Delay may affect credibility but does not negate the existence of an offence
Prior Acquittals Do Not Render Subsequent Complaints Malicious
- A complainant’s history of filing complaints, even if resulting in acquittal, does not automatically make a new complaint false
- Each case must be judged on its own merits and evidence
- Courts will not infer malice or abuse of process from prior litigation outcomes
Prima Facie Case Standard Is Strictly Applied
- If the complaint discloses an offence under a specific provision, and investigation yields material supporting it, quashing is barred
- The threshold for quashing remains high: only where allegations are inherently absurd, legally impossible, or manifestly false
- This judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts, not high courts, are the proper forums for resolving factual disputes
