[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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):-
"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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
