Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr.Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondert No.1/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.') with the following relief(s):-

          "The petitioners therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow instant petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.43/2026 registered in Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in offence punishable under Section 336, 337, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act., charge sheet under Section 193 of BNS dated 29.06.2026, order of taking cognizance dated 29.06.2026 and the criminal trial pending before Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) Special Court (POCSO) Act Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Special Session Case (POCSO) No. 58/2026 against the petitioners, in the interest of justice."

3. As per the prosecution story, on 10.08.2022 at about 01:00 p.m. while the victim was going towards her house along with 10th Marksheet, at the same time other co-accused Ramlalan forcefully taken her mark- sheet and demanded to made physical relationship only thereafter he will return mark-sheet, she stated that if the mark-sheet is not given her further education will stop. Co-accused Ramlalan had taken the victim on 10.08.2022 at about 10:00 O'clock in his motorcycle at forest where forcefully committed rape upon her and also captured the obsence photographs of the victim, by threatening since 2022 to 16.04.2026 the co-accused Ramlalan forcefully committed rape upon her, the allegation against the present petitioners is that co-accused Ramlalan, Ravicharan (Secretary of concerned Village) and petitioner No.1 who is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Balangi created the fake ration card of the victim by replacing the father name of the victim & mentioned husband name Ramlalan in place of father name of victim in the adhar card. The victim has lodged the FIR after the incident of more than 3 years and 8 months against the main accused namely Ramlalan and subsequently it is against the petitioners that being the Sarpanch/petitioner No. 2 and Sachiv/petitioner No. 2 of the Village Panchayat Balangi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj are involved in fabricated document of ration card in which the name of husband is mentioned as Ramlalan instead of her father's name. Upon such allegation the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against total 3 accused persons namely Ramlalan Jaiswal, Ravicharan and Kaushaliya Agariya, Kaushaliya Agariya/petitioner No. 1 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 822/2026 on 16.06.2026 and the petitioner No. 2 namely Ravicharan Bais has been granted regular bail in M.Cr.C. No. 4929/2026 on 16.06.2026 by this Hon'ble Court. The police has filed charge sheet on 29.06.2026 before the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) Special Court (POCSO) Act Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Special Session Case (POCSO) No. 58/2026. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the allegations against the Petitioners are vague and general in nature. The substantive allegations of sexual assault and repeated rape are exclusively against co-accused Ramlalan Jaiswal, and there is no allegation that either of the Petitioners committed or participated in those acts. It is submitted that the Petitioners have been implicated only on the allegation that, being the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Balangi, they were involved in preparation of a ration card wherein the name of Ramlalan was mentioned as the husband of the victim instead of her father's name. However, the Petitioners had no personal role in the alleged preparation or issuance of the ration card.

5. Learned counsel submits that, as per the material collected during investigation, the ration card was prepared on 13.10.2025 by the competent authorities. The application/documents were processed through the prescribed governmental machinery, and the final issuance and generation of the beneficiary ID were undertaken by the competent authorities. The Petitioners had no authority to independently issue or alter the ration card. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding the ration card, even if taken at its face value, does not establish any active participation, conspiracy or dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioners. The alleged benefit of mentioning Ramlalan's name as husband could, at best, have accrued to Ramlalan, and there is no material showing any benefit or motive attributable to the Petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the victim was born on 03.04.2005 and was a major when the FIR was lodged on 29.04.2026. The alleged first incident is stated to have occurred on 10.08.2022, whereas the FIR was lodged after approximately three years and eight months. The delay, particularly insofar as the allegations against the Petitioners are concerned, has not been satisfactorily explained.

6. It is submitted that the Petitioners have been roped in merely because their names were mentioned in the subsequent complaint, whereas the principal allegations remain against co-accused Ramlalan Jaiswal. There is no material demonstrating that the Petitioners were connected with the alleged acts of Ramlalan or that they had any role in the alleged offences under the POCSO Act or Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR and criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the Petitioners cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless at this stage. The prosecution case specifically alleges that the Petitioners, being the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Balangi, were involved in the preparation/fabrication of the ration card wherein the name of co- accused Ramlalan Jaiswal was shown as the husband of the prosecutrix in place of her father's name. It is submitted that the alleged fabrication of the document assumes significance in the context of the principal allegations against co-accused Ramlalan Jaiswal, who allegedly projected himself as the husband of the prosecutrix. The role attributed to the Petitioners therefore requires consideration along with the entire prosecution case and cannot be examined in isolation at the stage of bail.

8. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the fact that the ration card was processed through the official machinery does not, by itself, exonerate the Petitioners. The investigation has collected material indicating their involvement in the process, and the correctness, authenticity and evidentiary value of such material are matters to be tested during trial. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR is not, by itself, sufficient to discard the prosecution case at the stage of consideration of bail, particularly when the allegations relate to serious offences and the explanation and circumstances surrounding the delay are matters for appreciation of evidence during trial. Learned Government Advocate submits that the offences alleged are serious in nature and the prosecution has filed the charge-sheet after completing investigation. The materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the Petitioners, and therefore no ground for interference is made out at this stage. The learned Government Advocate accordingly prays that, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the Petitioners in the alleged preparation/fabrication of the ration card, and the material collected during investigation, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

12. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

13. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law.

14. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that on 10.08.2022 at about 01:00 p.m. while the victim was going towards her house along with 10 th marksheet, at the same time co-accused Ramlalan forcefully taken her mark-sheet and demanded to made physical relationship and only thereafter he will return mark-sheet. She stated that if the mark-sheet is not given to her, her further education will stop, co-accused Ramlalan had taken the victim on 10.08.2022 at about 10:00 O'clock in his motorcycle at forest where he forcefully committed rape upon her and also captured the obscene photographs of the victim and by threatening since 2022 to 16.04.2026 co-accused Ramlalan forcefully committed rape upon her. The allegation against the present petitioners is that the petitioners have created the fake ration card of the victim by replacing the father name of the victim & mentioned husband name Ramlalan in place of father name of victim in the adhar card.

15. From the above stated case laws and contents of the FIR, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS). In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

16. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings.

17. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

18. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed.