Chattisgarh High Court
Nashimuddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17330-DB
NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.04.20
11:31:49 +0530
CRMP No. 1069 of 2026
Nashimuddin S/o. Azizuddin Aged About 47 Years R/o. Ward No. 29,
Vrinda Nagar,camp 1, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer- Tikrapara,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Raipur, (C.G.)
3 - Child Marriage Prohibition Officer Bhatagaon, Dharsiva-I, Raipur
District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - ABC (Details Of Respondent No. 04 Is Submitted In A Sealed Cover)
… Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Siddharth Rathod, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms.Anusha Naik, Deputy Government
No.1 to 3/State Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate
2
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following relief(s):
“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash
the order dated 24-03-26 passed by the learned
Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special
Court, Raipur (C.G), in Special Criminal Case no.
20/2026 whereby the charges has been framed
against the petitioners under section 4,17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and
section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006; Order dated 13-03-26 passed by the learned
Additional session Judge, 1st Fast Track, Special
Court ‘POCSO’, Raipur (C.G), in at Special Criminal
Case по. 20/2026 whereby petitioners application for
discharge under section whereby 250 of the
Bhatriya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 has been
rejected; For quashment of First Information Report
dated 11-12-25 bearing F.1.R no.1002/2025
registered Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G) under section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition
of Child Marriage Act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n),
34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4,6 of the
Protection of children from sexual Offences, 2012
and also the chargesheet dated 09-01-26 bearing
no. 80/2026 filed by the police of police station
Tikrapara, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G) under
section 9,10,11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage
act, 2006; under section 376(2)(n), 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and 4,6 of the Protection of children
3from sexual Offences, 2012 before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G); and to
quash the criminal proceeding pending before
Additional Session Judge. 1st Fast Tract Special
Court “POCSO’ Raipur (C.G) in Case No. 20/2026
between “State of C.G vs Nasimuddin and Ors“, in
the interest of justice.”
3. Facts of the case are that on 11.12.2025, information was
received from Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, regarding the
alleged child marriage of Respondent No. 4 with co-accused
Ajnan Babu, stated to have been solemnized on 21.04.2024.
Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3, the Child Marriage
Prohibition Officer, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report
recommending registration of an FIR under the POCSO Act and
the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Based on the said
report, FIR No. 1002/2025 dated 15.12.2025 was registered. It
was alleged that Respondent No. 4 and the co-accused were in a
relationship, and that physical relations had been established prior
to their marriage, which was performed as per Muslim rites when
Respondent No. 4 was allegedly a minor, being four days short of
attaining majority.
4. It is stated that no complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 4 or
her family members at the time of the alleged incident.
Subsequently, on 29.08.2025, following matrimonial disputes,
Respondent No. 4 filed a separate complaint against her husband
and his family members; however, the allegations forming the
4
basis of the present FIR were not raised therein.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged complaints with
the authorities between August and October 2025 regarding the
alleged child marriage, pursuant to which an enquiry was initiated.
During the enquiry, statements of the petitioner, Respondent No.
4, and her mother were recorded. It is stated that no allegation
was made against the petitioner by Respondent No. 4, though her
mother later alleged that the petitioner had compelled the
marriage. Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report, the FIR
was registered and investigation was conducted. It is stated that
certain documents, including the petitioner’s statement, were not
included in the charge sheet. It is further case of the petitioner that
he is not related to the parties and was not present at the time of
the marriage. His application under Section 250 BNSS was
dismissed on 13.03.2026, and charges were framed against him
on 24.03.2026 under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act
and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Hence, the present
petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet
filed by the police of Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) against the petitioner under the aforesaid
provisions is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled
principles of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Learned Court below has failed to appreciate that
5
the petitioner, being the complainant in the initial instance, was
neither properly heard nor was his statement recorded during the
enquiry or investigation. On the contrary, the entire prosecution
case is based solely upon the statements of respondent No. 4 and
her mother (respondent No. 3), which renders the investigation
biased and one-sided. The marriage between respondent No. 4
and co-accused Ajnan Babu was solemnized on 21.04.2024 at
Raipur with the knowledge and participation of her family
members. Despite this, no complaint or allegation regarding the
alleged offences was made either before the police authorities,
the learned Judicial Magistrate, or any competent authority for a
prolonged period. The allegations have surfaced only after an
unexplained delay of more than one year and eight months,
clearly indicating that the same are an afterthought.
7. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 4 and her
parents had willingly consented to the said marriage, and the
ceremony was conducted at their residence. No grievance was
raised at any point of time prior to the petitioner’s complaint. The
belated allegations reflect mala fide intent and are clearly
motivated. The prosecution has deliberately suppressed material
evidence, including the earlier statements of respondent No. 4
and her mother recorded prior to registration of the FIR, as well as
the statement of the petitioner. Such suppression indicates
collusion between the investigating authorities and the private
respondents, thereby vitiating the entire investigation. There is no
6
cogent evidence on record, such as photographs or testimony of
independent witnesses, to establish the presence or involvement
of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The allegations against the
petitioner are thus baseless and unsupported by any credible
material. He also submits that the facts of the case reveal a
complete reversal of roles, wherein the petitioner, who initially
approached the authorities, has been falsely implicated as an
accused, while the actual accused persons have been projected
as victims, without any lawful basis. The petitioner has been
deprived of a fair, impartial, and transparent investigation, which is
a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
that the petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on
bail, despite the absence of a prima facie case. Even a bare
perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose the essential
ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 4 and
17 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act. The continuation of proceedings under these
provisions is therefore a gross abuse of the process of law. The
prosecution case rests solely on the statements of interested
witnesses, namely respondent No. 4 and her mother, without any
independent corroboration, which significantly weakens the
credibility of the allegations.
8. Learned counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to
discharge its burden of establishing even a prima facie case, let
7
alone proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The FIR
itself indicates that respondent No. 4 and her family members
were consenting parties to the marriage, and therefore, no
element of coercion or criminal intent can be attributed to the
petitioner and there are material contradictions and improvements
in the statements of respondent No. 4 recorded during enquiry
and investigation, which clearly indicate that the allegations are
fabricated and motivated. The entire criminal prosecution has
been initiated with a mala fide intention to harass, defame, and
falsely implicate the petitioner, and is nothing but an abuse of the
process of law. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that
this may be pleased to quash the impugned charge-sheet and all
consequential proceedings against the petitioner, in the interest of
justice.
9. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR
discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
11. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).
Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is
8
warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any
offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted
[See State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335].
12. At the outset, the primary contention advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated, that the
investigation is biased, and that no prima facie case is made out
against him for the offences alleged under the relevant provisions
of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
It is further contended that the petitioner, being the complainant,
has been wrongly arrayed as an accused.
13. This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submissions.
A careful perusal of the FIR and the material collected during
investigation reveals that specific allegations have been made
regarding the solemnization of a child marriage and the
involvement of persons who facilitated or participated in such
marriage. The statement of the mother of the victim (Respondent
No. 4), recorded during enquiry and investigation, prima facie
indicates the role attributed to the petitioner in pressurizing the
family for solemnization of the marriage.
14. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or while
considering a petition seeking quashing of proceedings, the Court
is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence
9
or adjudicate upon the reliability or veracity of statements
recorded during investigation. The Court is only required to
ascertain whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the
material available on record.
15. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner that the
allegations are an afterthought and are motivated cannot be
conclusively determined at this stage. The delay in lodging the
FIR, the alleged contradictions in statements, and the plea of
mala fide are all matters of evidence which require adjudication
during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
16. The argument that the petitioner’s statement was not recorded or
that certain documents have not been annexed with the charge
sheet, even if assumed to be correct, does not by itself vitiate the
entire prosecution case at this stage. Such alleged lapses in
investigation cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings
when prima facie material exists disclosing commission of
cognizable offences.
17. The submission that the petitioner is not related to the parties and
was not present at the time of marriage is a matter of defence,
which cannot be examined in proceedings under the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court. The truthfulness or otherwise of such a
plea can only be tested during trial.
18. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act and
the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is concerned, the FIR and
10
the material collected during investigation disclose that the victim
was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and that a child
marriage was solemnized. The allegations further disclose
participation and facilitation by certain persons. At this stage, it
cannot be said that the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences are not made out.
19. The contention that the petitioner has been deprived of a fair
investigation and that his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India have been violated is also not tenable at this stage. The
petitioner shall have full opportunity to defend himself during the
course of trial, to cross-examine witnesses, and to produce
evidence in his defence.
20. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material placed
before it, has framed charges against the petitioner. This Court
finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned
orders warranting interference.
21. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High
Court are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and
only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or
where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and
are an abuse of the process of law. The present case does not fall
within such exceptional categories.
22. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has
11
observed that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has
emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the
F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.
23. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss
& Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the
Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law
that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High
Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to
be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and
allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in
the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable
offence or not.
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the material available on record discloses a prima
facie case against the petitioner. The submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which
12
cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
25. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu