Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
2026:CGHC:11368-DB
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.10
17:27:20
NAFR
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 663 of 2026
Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri Banshilal Chaturvedi Aged About 38
Years R/o Bodsara, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-
2
"I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of BNSS 2023 filed by the petitioners.
II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR bearing No. 637/2025 dated 14/12/2025, registered at Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for the alleged offences under Sections 64(2) (m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and charge-sheet bearing No. 29/2026, and all consequential proceedings arising in criminal case 126/2025 there from, in the interest of justice;
III. That, Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a duly elected Gram Sarpanch of his village and a respectable member of society. He was married in the year 2005 and is blessed with six children, with whom he resides along with his family members. The victim, on the other hand, is a 30-year-old married woman whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and she is the mother of five children aged about 16, 15, 14, 10 and 3 years respectively. In the month of March, 2025, the victim had approached for preparation of a Nirashrit (destitute) card, during which she came into contact with the petitioner and 3 thereafter both parties started communicating over mobile phone and subsequently met again during a village festival at Bodsara.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that during the period from March, 2025 to November, 2025 the petitioner and the victim remained in contact and allegedly developed physical relations. Thereafter, on 14.12.2025, the victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur, which was registered as FIR No. 637/2025 for offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the petitioner. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, which was registered as MCRCA No. 69 of 2026, and this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge-sheet No. 29/2026 dated 29.01.2026 before the competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)
(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge-sheet, and contending that the allegations even if taken at their face value do not disclose commission of any offence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking appropriate relief from this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, the allegations clearly 4 disclose that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual and voluntary between two major adults. It is contended that the victim herself was a married woman and mother of five children at the relevant point of time and was fully aware of her marital status as well as the legal and social consequences of entering into any relationship. In such circumstances, the allegation that the petitioner induced her into physical relations on the pretext of marriage is inherently improbable and legally unsustainable, particularly when marriage between the parties was legally impossible in view of their subsisting marriages.
6. It is further submitted that for attracting criminal liability on the ground of consent obtained under misconception of fact, it must be established that such misconception related to a legally possible and believable fact and that the accused had a dishonest intention from the very inception of the relationship. Learned counsel submits that in the present case there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner had any fraudulent intention at the beginning of the relationship. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that the parties remained in a voluntary relationship for several months, which subsequently deteriorated due to personal differences, and therefore the same cannot be converted into a criminal offence merely because the relationship did not culminate into marriage.
5
7. Learned counsel also submits that the victim is a mature and experienced individual who cannot be said to have been misled by any alleged promise of marriage. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2026 INSC 124, wherein it has been held that where the complainant is already married and fully aware of the legal impossibility of marriage, the plea that consent was obtained on the basis of a promise of marriage loses all credibility. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged only after certain personal differences arose between the parties and has been given a criminal colour as an afterthought, particularly in the backdrop of local political rivalry against the petitioner who is serving as Gram Sarpanch.
8. Learned counsel lastly submits that applying the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, even if the entire allegations are accepted as true, the same do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner. It is therefore contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, and hence this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that for constituting 6 an offence on the ground of false promise of marriage, it must be established that the accused had a dishonest intention from the very inception of the relationship. A mere failure of a relationship or refusal to marry at a later stage would not amount to deception so as to attract criminal liability. It is therefore contended that where the material on record indicates a prolonged and consensual relationship between two major individuals, the same cannot subsequently be converted into a criminal prosecution.
9. On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that the facts of the present case clearly indicate a voluntary relationship between the petitioner and the victim extending over several months, and therefore the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the victim, wherein specific allegations have been made that the petitioner established physical relations with her repeatedly on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. It is submitted that the complaint discloses that the petitioner remained in contact with the victim for a considerable period of time and allegedly induced her into a physical relationship by assuring that he would marry 7 her. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the complaint, the police registered Crime No. 637/2025 at Police Station Bilha and conducted investigation in accordance with law. During the course of investigation, statements of the victim and other witnesses were recorded and sufficient material was found against the petitioner, pursuant to which a charge-sheet bearing No. 29/2026 has already been filed before the competent Court for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Lastly, he contends that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences and involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS. It is submitted that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be examined during the course of trial and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
12. From a perusal of the complaint dated 13.12.2025 lodged by the victim, it transpires that she is a 30-year-old married woman and mother of five children who has been living separately from her husband for the last about five years due to matrimonial disputes. It has been alleged that about a year prior to the complaint she came in contact with the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi, 8 when she had gone to village Bodsara for preparation of a destitute card, after which they started communicating over mobile phone. The complaint further narrates that in March 2025 she met the petitioner at the Bodsara fair and thereafter he allegedly took her to a farmhouse situated at Durgdih, Bilha, where he established physical relations with her on the assurance that he would marry her despite already being married. It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioner continued to visit her residence at Awaspara Parsada and maintained physical relations with her on multiple occasions till November 2025, but subsequently refused to marry her and switched off his mobile phone, on the basis of which she has alleged that the petitioner had established relations with her by luring her with a promise of marriage and has sought action against him.
13. It is well settled that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, only in cases where the allegations made in the complaint or the charge-sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fide intention. The inherent powers of the High Court are intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, but such powers cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold when the allegations disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence and require appreciation of 9 evidence during trial.
14. In the present case, a perusal of the complaint as well as the material collected during investigation indicates that the victim has specifically alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her repeatedly on the assurance of marriage and thereafter refused to fulfill the said promise. The complaint further narrates a course of conduct extending over several months, during which the petitioner allegedly maintained physical relations with the victim. The veracity, credibility and evidentiary value of these allegations cannot be examined in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, as the same would require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses, which falls within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations disclose the commission of an offence and not whether the prosecution case will ultimately result in conviction.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Navratna (supra) to contend that where the victim is already a married woman and aware of the legal impossibility of marriage, the allegation that consent was obtained on the promise of marriage cannot ordinarily be sustained in law. This Court has carefully considered the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts and 10 does not advance the case of the petitioner.
16. In Pramod Kumar Navratna (supra), the complainant was an Advocate by profession who was already married and had a son. Importantly, at the relevant time matrimonial litigation between her and her husband was actively pending before the Family Court and the possibility of dissolution of marriage was under judicial consideration. The factual matrix of that case further indicated that the relationship between the parties had developed in the background of such pending matrimonial dispute, and the Supreme Court examined the issue of consent in light of those peculiar circumstances. Thus, the Court was dealing with a situation where the complainant herself was involved in ongoing divorce proceedings and the relationship between the parties arose in that context.
17. In contrast, the facts of the present case stand on a materially different footing. Here, the complaint itself discloses that the victim is a married woman and mother of five children who has been living separately from her husband for several years, but there is no material on record to indicate that any divorce proceedings between her and her husband were pending at the relevant time or that there existed any legally identifiable step towards dissolution of her marriage. The absence of such circumstances assumes significance because the promise of marriage, if alleged, cannot be evaluated in abstraction but must be examined in the 11 backdrop of surrounding factual circumstances and the conduct of the parties.
18. Furthermore, the complaint in the present case narrates a detailed course of conduct extending over several months during which the petitioner allegedly remained in constant contact with the victim and repeatedly established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. The allegations indicate that the petitioner continued to maintain the relationship for a considerable period before allegedly refusing to honour the promise. Whether such assurance was genuine or was made with a dishonest intention from the inception is essentially a question of fact which requires appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses during trial.
19. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the corresponding provision contained in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, this Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or to meticulously evaluate the evidentiary worth of the allegations made by the complainant. The Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the complaint and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
20. In the present case, the complaint specifically attributes a series 12 of acts to the petitioner whereby he allegedly induced the victim into a physical relationship by assuring that he would marry her and thereafter continued such relationship for several months before refusing to fulfil the said promise. These allegations, if ultimately proved during trial, may attract the provisions invoked by the prosecution. Consequently, this Court cannot, at the threshold stage, return a definitive finding regarding the voluntariness of consent or the existence of misconception of fact.
21. It is also noteworthy that the Investigating Agency, after conducting investigation in accordance with law, has already submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Court indicating the existence of prima facie material against the petitioner. The investigation included recording of the statement of the victim and other relevant witnesses and collection of material which, in the opinion of the Investigating Officer, disclosed the commission of the alleged offences. Once such material has been placed before the trial Court in the form of a charge-sheet, the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction becomes extremely limited. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidence collected during investigation or to record findings on the disputed factual aspects sought to be raised by the petitioner. Questions relating to the nature of consent, the circumstances in which the physical relationship was established, and the intention of the petitioner at 13 the relevant point of time are all essentially matters of evidence which require a full-fledged trial. These aspects can appropriately be examined by the trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and the petitioner would also have adequate opportunity to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court, including at the stage of consideration of discharge, in accordance with law. Interference at this juncture, when the prosecution has already culminated in filing of a charge-sheet, would amount to short-circuiting the statutory procedure prescribed for adjudication of criminal cases.
22. In view of the aforesaid distinguishing features and the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in Pramod Kumar Navratna (supra) cannot be applied mechanically to the facts of the present case. The said decision was rendered in the peculiar factual context where the complainant was involved in pending matrimonial litigation with her husband and the relationship between the parties had developed in that backdrop. In the present case, however, the complaint discloses a different factual scenario wherein the victim has alleged that the petitioner repeatedly induced her into a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage and continued such relationship for a considerable period of time. The determination of whether such assurance was made with a bona 14 fide intention or was merely a device to obtain consent is a matter which necessarily depends upon the appreciation of the evidence that may be led during trial.
23. It is well settled that cases involving allegations of physical relations on the promise of marriage cannot be decided on broad generalisations or by applying precedents in a mechanical manner, as the issue of consent and the existence of misconception of fact are highly fact-sensitive and depend upon the overall conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances of each case. Therefore, unless the allegations contained in the complaint are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so inherently improbable as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at this preliminary stage. Consequently, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid judgment for seeking quashment of the FIR and the consequential proceedings.
24. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during 15 investigation prima facie disclose the commission of offences and raise questions which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence before the competent trial Court.
25. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the trial Court in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu