Atul Kumar Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2026:CGHC:20136-DB NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2834 of 2025

Atul Kumar Ekka S/o Isidor Ekka Aged About 36 Years R/o Old Age Home, Chathirma, Bhagwanpurkhurd, Police Station - Gandhinagar, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Gandhinagar, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Tirkey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

For Respondent No. 2/ Complainant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

30/04/2026 1 Heard Mr. Amit Tirkey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1/State, as

well as Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.

2/complainant.

2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the 2

FIR No. 284/2025 dated 15.05.2025 registered at Police Station Gandinagar, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) and Chargesheet No. 234/2025 dated 11.07.2025 ANNEXURE P-2) and also quash taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) including order dated 14.07.2025 in the Criminal Case No. 5015/2025 namely State of Chhattisgarh Vs Atul Kumar Ekka by virtue of which the learned trial court has registered criminal case for an offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and to quash the entire subsequent criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner [ANNEXURE P 1]:

2. Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

3 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.05.2025 at about 16:40

hours, the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR at Police Station

Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja alleging commission of

offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, stating

that the petitioner and the complainant had a long love affair of seven

years from 15.08.2018 to 01.11.2024. As per the complainant, the

petitioner promised for marring complainant and committed sexual

intercourse with her several times over nearly 07 years. Subsequently,

when the complainant asked the petitioner to marry her, he refused to

marry her. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2025 and was released

on bail on 05.07.2025 by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC)

Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.GJ.

4 Mr. Amit Tirkey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is posted as a Teacher at Government Middle School,

Kailshpur, Block and District - Surajpur and a false and frivolous criminal

case has been filed against the petitioner. The complainant is also 3

currently employed as Head-Master at Mata Rajmohani Primary School

Block Pratappur District Surjapur and she is well educated as well as

socially aware person. Even by looking into the nature of the allegations

against the petitioner, it is nearly reflected that the false allegations are

made only to settle the personal score against the petitioner and to

harass the petitioner. The registration of FIR and initiation of criminal

proceeding against petitioner is abuse of process of law. There is

considerable amount of delay in lodging of FIR and the respondent No.2

has not given any reasonable explanations for delay in filling of a FIR.

The duration of commission of offence is 15.08.2018 to 01.11.2024 and

FIR was lodged on 15.05.2025. The ingredients of section 69 of BNS are

not present in the nature of allegation as well as evidence collected by

the police. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and

instant FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings have been initiated only

to harass the petitioner. While exercising the powers under Section 528

of BNSS this Hon'ble Court can quash the criminal proceedings itself on

the ground that by logging the impugned FIR the informant has misused

the legal remedy and it amounts of abuse of process of law and it is

nothing but hand twisting method. As such, he prays that the petition may

be allowed and the FIR, the charge sheet and the order passed by the

learned trial Court taking cognizance, deserve to be set aside.

5 On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing

for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the instant petition as framed

and filed by the petitioner is bereft of merit and substance and therefore

the same deserves to be dismissed. The respondent No.2/complainant is

employed as Head Master and the present petitioner is also holding the

government post of Teacher and had a long love affair of seven years

from 15.08.2018 to 01.11.2024. As per the complaint of the respondent 4

No.2/complainant that the petitioner on the assurance of marriage had

committed sexual intercourse with her during that period and when the

complainant asked her to marry the petitioner refused to marry. Upon the

complaint of the respondent No.2/complainant and on the basis of report,

FIR has been registered by the Police on being cognizable offence made

out and an FIR at Crime No. 284/2025 dated 15.05.2025 has been

registered at Police Station Gandhinagar District Surguja (Ambikapur)

(CG) for the offence punishable under section 69 of the BNS, 2023

against the petitioner. After registration of the offence the police recorded

the statement of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses

wherein it is stated that the present petitioner on the pretext of marriage

had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix for a period of

about 7 years and when the prosecutrix told to marry the petitioner the

petitioner refused to marry with her. That immediately after registration of

the FIR the prosecutrix was medically examined by the Women Medical

Officer of Medical College District Hospital, Ambikapur and the Doctor

after examination of the complainant preserved the vaginal slides and

sent for examination before the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The

petitioner was arrested and was also medically examined and looking to

the material collected by the answering respondent in the investigation

done so far the action taken by the police authorities on cogent evidence

and material on record and on these circumstances clearly established

the fact that the present petitioner and another are involved in the

commission of the aforesaid offence and the concerned police authorities

after considering all the aspect and in view of the circumstances of the

case the police has registered and investigating the offence strictly in

accordance with law and after due investigation the police has also filed

the final charge sheet No. 234/2025 dated 11/07/2025 punishable for the 5

offence under section 69 of BNS against the present petitioner. The

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur District Surguja after

examining the charge sheet and material available against the petitioner

vide its order dated 14/07/2025 has taken cognizance of the offence

punishable under section 69 of the BNS in Criminal case No. 5015/2025.

The petitioner has not made out any of the ground in which a petition

under section 528 of BNSS can be entertained. It is further submitted

that the petitioner has not been able to point out any grave injustice being

caused to him and neither has been able to point out that during

investigation caused serious prejudice to him and would cause injustice

therefore the petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed as the

same is misconceived. Exercise of power under Section 528 of BNSS in

a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does

not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent

power which the Court. Looking to the evidence available collected by the

prosecution upon the investigation and the charge sheet filed and further

the charges have also been framed against the petitioner, there is every

possibility that the petitioner will be convicted. Thus, the instant petition

under section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable and the same is liable to

be dismissed.

6 Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.

2/complainant submits that the complainant was subjected to prolonged

mental, emotional, and sexual exploitation by the petitioner, who misled

her for seven years with false promises of marriage. The delay in filing the

FIR is explained by the fact that the Complainant initially hoped for

amicable resolution and reconciliation, and the petitioner's repeated

assurances of marriage prevented her from taking immediate legal

action. The complainant and the petitioner were in a consensual 6

relationship from August 2018 to November 2024. During this period, the

petitioner repeatedly promised marriage and the complainant into sexual

relations without any intentionally induced intention of fulfilling his

promises. The and complainant trusted the petitioner due to his repeated

assurances continued the relationship, which included multiple instances

of travel and social interaction, relying on the Petitioner's representation

of his intentions. The actions of the petitioner squarely fall within the

ambit of Section 69 of the BNS which criminalizes sexual intercourse

obtained by deceptive means or false promises of marriage, without any

intention of performing the marriage. By falsely promising marriage and

engaging in sexual relations with the complainant, the petitioner

committed an offence punishable under Section 69 BNS. The conduct of

the Petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 69 of the BNS

which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by deceptive means,

including false promises of marriage, without any intention of performing

the marriage. It is clarified under the statute that such sexual intercourse

shall not be treated as rape, but constitutes distinct offence punishable

with imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. The petitioner deliberately

induced her into sexual relations by promising marriage repeatedly over a

period of seven years, without any intention to fulfill these promises. He

misrepresented his intentions and used deceitful means to exploit her

sexually and emotionally. Section 69 explicitly recognizes this form of

exploitation as a separate and cognizable offence, distinct from rape,

ensuring criminal liability for such conduct. The legislature has

specifically enacted Section 69 to address precisely such situations

where women are deceived by false promises of marriage. The FIR and

subsequent proceedings are therefore in strict conformity with the law

and valid under Section 69 BNS. There is sufficient material to establish 7

a prima facie case under Section 69 BNS. The allegations are neither

vague nor general; they are supported by the detailed statement of the

complainant recorded under Section 180 BNSS on 15.05.2025, which

sets out specific dates, events, and acts of the Petitioner, including

repeated false assurances of marriage, sexual relations, and

psychological intimidation. The record also establishes the petitioner's

awareness of the complainant's consent being obtained by deception.

Further, the delay is justifiable in view of the complainant's initial trust in

the Petitioner, fear of social stigma, and ongoing mental harassment. The

petitioner's claim that being a government servant makes him entitled to

protection from criminal proceedings is without merit. No law exempts

public servants from criminal liability, especially when the offence

involves exploitation of a woman through deceit. The argument that the

FIR has been filed to harass the petitioner is contrary to the evidence, as

the FIR reflects a genuine grievance of the Complainant, supported by

contemporaneous statements and documented facts. The accused/

petitioner has again and again committed rape with the victim since last 7

years on pretext of marriage but the accused/petitioner has always

refused to solemnize marriage with her, due to this, victim is being

mentally harassed and her parents and family members are being

adversely effected to their society and hence the instant petition is liable

to be dismissed. The conduct of the accused/petitioner is criminal nature

in grievous/serious offence and hence the accused/petitioner is liable to

be convicted for commission of alleged offences as per law.

7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

pleadings and materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

8 In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant was

subjected to sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage for about 7 8

long years. The incident is said to have taken place in between

15.08.2018 to 01.11.2024 and the FIR was lodged on 15.05.2025. Both

the petitioner as well as the complainant are government teachers. They

are well educated and are aware of the consequences of their own acts.

From perusal of the FIR itself, it is evident that both the parties are known

to each other and the physical relationship established between them

was consensual and not forceful. It is not a case where the complainant

is a minor girl or illiterate lady. She was fully aware of the consequences

of her acts and after having long relationship, she cannot term the same

to be an offence where she has been exploited.

9 It would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in

Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197, whereby

it was held that when a woman who willingly engages in a long-term

sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any

cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by

misconception of fact or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from

the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of

the IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:

"33. There is no dispute that from the year 2006 onwards, the complainant and the appellant were residing in different towns. The complainant is an educated woman and there was no pressure whatsoever upon her which could have prevented her from filing a police complaint against the accused if she felt that the sexual relations were under duress or were being established under a false assurance of marriage. On many occasions, she even portrayed herself to be the wife of the appellant thereby, dispelling the allegation that the intention of the appellant was to cheat her right from the inception of the relationship.

34. We cannot remain oblivious to the fact that it was mostly the complainant who used to travel to meet the appellant at his place of posting. Therefore, we are convinced that the 9

relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual without the existence of any element of deceit or misconception.

35. Further, the application filed by the complainant at One Stop Centre, Lalitpur on 23-3-2022, makes it abundantly clear that she was in a consensual relationship with the appellant since 2006. It is alleged in the complaint that when she had proposed that they should marry and live together, the appellant physically abused her and beat her up. If at all there was an iota of truth in this allegation then the FIR should have been registered immediately after this incident. However, it is only when it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the appellant was getting married to another woman, in an attempt to stop his marriage, she filed aforesaid complaint at the One Stop Centre wherein she also admitted that she was equally guilty as the appellant and therefore, his marriage must be stopped.

xxx

39. It is, therefore, clear that the accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations. The Court has also recognised that a prosecutrix can agree to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused."

10 Recently, the Apex Court, in Samadhan s/o Sitaram Manmothe v.

State of Maharashtra & Another {Cr.A. No. 5001 of 2025 (Arising out

of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6906 of 2025)} while dealing with

similar issue, observed as under:

"37. The said finding of the High Court, however, fails to appreciate that a plain reading of the FIR in question itself reveals that the relationship between the parties was, in fact, consensual, inasmuch as respondent No.2 met the appellant whenever he expressed a desire to meet her. Furthermore, respondent No. 2, being a major and an educated individual, voluntarily associated with the appellant and entered into physical intimacy on her own volition. It is also pertinent to note that, at the relevant time, the marriage of respondent No.2 was 10

subsisting. In light of the foregoing circumstances, even upon a bare reading of the material on record, it is manifest that the relationship between the parties was consensual, and therefore, the absence of an express statement to that effect in the memo of application, as emphasised in the impugned order, cannot be held against the appellant when the same can be otherwise clearly discerned.

38. At this stage it is material to refer to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Damu, wherein the following observations were made:

"29. It must also be clear that for a promise to be a false promise to amount to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90 IPC, it must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive the woman to persuade her to have a physical relationship. Therefore, if it is established that such consent was given under a misconception of fact, the said consent is vitiated and not a valid consent. In this regard we may refer to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] , in which it was held as follows: (SCC pp. 682-84, paras 21 & 24)

"21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent 11

involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.

xxx

24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The 'failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term "misconception of fact", the fact must have an immediate relevance'. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her."

39. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,this Court formulated the parameters in terms of which the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 12

1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS) could be exercised. While it is not necessary to revisit all these parameters, a few that are relevant to the present case may be set out. The Court held that quashing may be appropriate:

"102. xxx

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.

(2) Where theallegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

xxx"

40. In view of the foregoing analysis, we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the High Court, inasmuch as the present case pertains to a consensual relationship, and the acts of respondent No.2 clearly manifest consent to such a relationship devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation as contemplated in Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In our opinion, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery."

11 In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we can

safely hold that the present case pertains to a consensual relationship,

and the acts of respondent No.2 clearly manifest consent to such a

relationship devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation. The acts

complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a 13

relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation

of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of

process of law.

12 Accordingly, the FIR bearing Crime No. 284/2025, dated 15.05.2025

registered at Police Station, Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar),

Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Section 69

of the BNS, 2023, the charge sheet bearing No. 234/2025, dated

11.07.2025, the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ambikapur, including the order dated 14.07.2025 in Criminal

Case No. 5015/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the

BNS, 2023 and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner, are

quashed.

13 Resultantly, this petition stands allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.01 14:52:23 +0530