1 CGHC010344952026 2026:CGHC:39640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1179 of 2026 • Tukesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Sukhedi Yadav, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village - Pendri, Police Station - Masturi, Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer P. S. - Lemru, Distt - Korba (C.G.) 2. DRI CR 026 V - 1 ...Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/09/2026 Heard. 1. This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba, District Korba, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.38/2026, whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charge against the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.09.11 17:30:33 +0530 2 applicant for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution case, in brief, is that prosecutrix came into contact with the applicant and they developed a relationship. According to prosecutrix, applicant assured her that he would marry her and, relying upon such assurance, established physical relations with her. It is alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her at Satrenga Resort on 30.04.2024 and thereafter continued the relationship on the promise of marriage. It is further alleged that on 09.04.2025, he again established physical relations with her at Buka Resort. When she insisted upon marriage, applicant avoided the same, blocked her mobile number and subsequently she came to know that he had married another woman. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an offence was initially registered at Police Station Darri, District Korba, and thereafter Crime No.03/2026 was registered at Police Station Lemru, Korba for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, framed charge under Section 69 of the BNS vide order dated 16.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, on the basis of the written complaint lodged by prosecutrix, FIR bearing Crime No.03/2026 has been registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the 3 BNS, 2023. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that, on the false promise of marriage, applicant sexually exploited her on 30.04.2024 at Satrenga Resort and on 09.04.2025 at Buka Resort. However, the documents issued by the President/Secretary of Jal Vihar, Buka Resort, filed by the prosecution, show that the applicant had stayed at Buka Resort on 07.04.2025 with some other person. Likewise, the Police had sought information from the Manager of Satrenga Resort, but no material was disclosed to show that the applicant had stayed there along with the prosecutrix on 30.04.2024. Thus, there is no documentary evidence to establish that on 30.04.2024 and 09.04.2025, applicant had sexually exploited the prosecutrix at Satrenga Resort and Buka Resort, respectively. It is submitted that, without properly considering the aforesaid material, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba has framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. Hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the applicant may be discharged from the aforesaid charge. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that from the written report, it is evident that the applicant did not sexually exploit the victim/prosecutrix only on the aforesaid two occasions, rather, he continuously sexually exploited her since 30.04.2024 on the false pretext of marriage. The documents issued by the President/Secretary of Buka Resort also show that the applicant used to stay there with females. He further submits that there is sufficient material 4 available on record to frame charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provision. Prior to enactment of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, BNS, 2023’), there was no specific provision under the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) corresponding to Section 69 of BNS, 2023 to punish a person for having sexual intercourse with a women by making a false promise of marriage, where such intercourse did not amount to rape. However, the BNS, 2023 now contains a specific provision in this regard under Section 69, which reads as under:- “Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.- 69. Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-“Deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marring by suppressing identity.” 8. In the present case, perusal of the written report, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged, shows that the applicant allegedly sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage since 30.04.2024. Though the prosecutrix has specifically stated in her written complaint that the applicant 5 sexually exploited her on 30.04.2024 and 09.04.2025 at Satrenga Resort and Buka Resort, respectively, but the contents of FIR indicate that the alleged physical relations were not confined to these two dates and that the applicant continued to establish physical relations with her in the intervening period on the assurance of marriage. Further, the documents filed by the applicant, issued by the President/Secretary of Buka Resort to the SHO, Police Station Lemru, District Korba, along with the photocopy of the relevant register (Annexure A-4), also indicate that on 08.04.2025, the applicant had stayed at Buka Resort with a female. Thus, the prosecution case is not confined merely to the two specific dates mentioned in the written complaint; rather, the documents relied upon by the applicant themselves indicate that he used to stay at the said resorts with females. 9. Since Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 specifically provides for punishment where a person has sexual intercourse with a woman by making a promise to marry her without any intention of fulfilling the same, and such allegation has been specifically made by the prosecutrix in the present case, as is evident from the written complaint/FIR and the material on record prima facie discloses the ingredients of the said offence. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation or detailed analysis of the facts and documents relied upon by the applicant in support of his defence. Such disputed questions are matters to be considered during the course of trial. 6 10. Upon due consideration, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing charge under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. No ground is made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh