Quashing is impermissible where charge-sheet discloses a prima facie case requiring adjudication through trial.

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 28/2026, the charge-sheet, and the resulting criminal proceedings (Session Case No. 54/2026) pending before the Upper Session Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur.

The complainant, a 21-year-old married woman, alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on 19.11.2025 without her consent on a false pretext of marriage.

Following an investigation involving medical examinations and witness statements, a charge-sheet was filed on 27.01.2026 for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, both parties were aware of each other’s marital status (negating any "promise of marriage"), and that the complainant had a history of filing similar false cases.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, warrant quashing under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

2. Whether the allegations and evidence collected during the investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it.

The court applied the settled legal principle regarding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, which holds that if the allegations in the FIR and the material in the charge-sheet, taken at face value, constitute a cognizable offence, the High Court should not interfere or meticulously weigh the evidence at a preliminary stage.

The court observed that the investigation had progressed significantly, including the recording of witness statements, medical examination of the victim at SIMS Hospital, and the seizure of forensic evidence.

It noted that the prosecution’s material prima facie indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence.

The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the defense of consent, delay in filing the FIR, and alleged false implication, categorizing these as matters of fact that must be adjudicated during a full trial rather than in a quashing petition.

The court emphasized that in exercising its inherent jurisdiction, it cannot undertake a "meticulous appreciation of disputed questions of fact" or evaluate the "probative value" of the evidence collected.

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing proceedings and dismissed the petition. The petitioner's prayer for quashing the FIR and charge-sheet was denied.