LatestLaws.com’s Chhattisgarh High Court Digest (2025)
Get comprehensive year-end coverage of the most significant judgments delivered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2025 across Constitutional Law, Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce, and other key legal domains, all brought together in one authoritative compilation by LatestLaws.com.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that since neither any judicial (criminal) proceedings were instituted against respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor were any proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is entitled to the full gratuity amount on the date of his retirement.
This decision came while dismissing an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.11.2023 in WPS, where the learned Single Judge had previously allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons and thus the trial Court is not bound to pass a detailed order to meet the evidence as if it is going to conduct a mini-trial.
This decision was made while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29th April 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, in which the revision filed by the petitioners was rejected.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the object of the D.V. Act of 2005 is to provide relief to an aggrieved woman who is subjected to domestic violence and falls within the ambit of an aggrieved person.
This ruling was made while allowing a criminal revision filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a Criminal Appeal, which had stemmed from the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the application for an allowance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offense u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe.
This decision was made while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-First Additional Sessions Judge, in which the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed a key issue regarding the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that without proper certification or verification establishing that the victim or deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
This decision came in the wake of an appeal filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act) on 30th January 2021. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, finding grave legal irregularities in the lower court's ruling.
Recently, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offense under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was in a fit mental and physical state to give a dying declaration, and since the declaration lacked corroboration, it could not be solely relied upon to convict the appellants.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, which directed the appellants to make payment for the work completed by the respondent. The court held that the State cannot deny payment for work done under a valid work order, even if procedural irregularities were committed by the concerned government officer.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the legality, validity, and correctness of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, by which the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court held that in POCSO cases, the sole testimony of the victim can be the basis for conviction if it is reliable and inspires confidence.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, along with the absence of medical corroboration, and held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the revision petition filed against the order dated 5.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit had been rejected, holding that the suit may only be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit when the Court is satisfied that the suit must fail for reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all four appellants of offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence and it can only be made the basis of conviction, if it inspires full confidence of the Court and if the Court is satisfied that the maker of the said oral dying declaration was in a fit state of mind at the time of making it.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court was called upon to examine whether the trial court had correctly framed charges in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage, caste-based abuse, and offences under the POCSO Act. The case revolved around claims by the complainant that the appellant had repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation over several years, beginning when she was a minor, and continued the relationship even after marrying someone else. The Court was tasked with determining whether the trial court had erred in excluding the POCSO Act provisions despite evidence suggesting the complainant was below 18 years of age during part of the alleged period of abuse.
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Shiv Kumar Bhoy and Jitendra Bhoy, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The Court observed that if even one link in the chain is broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof; the chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete as to implicate the appellants to the exclusion of any other persons.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the trial court’s dismissal of a cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, holding that the statutory presumption stood unrebutted as the execution of the cheque and loan agreement remained undisputed. The Court observed that mere denial or absence of direct evidence was insufficient to displace the presumption under Sections 118 and 139.
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC. The Court said that the evidence of a hostile witness does not get effaced from record, rather is the position is required to be examined cautiously to find out as to what extent he supported the prosecution version.
Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging conditions attached to a government employee’s promotion order, holding that the State acted within its powers in imposing such terms. The Court observed that once an employee accepts a promotion with its conditions, they cannot subsequently challenge those conditions after availing the benefits.
Picture Source :
