1 CGHC010299512026 2026:CGHC:39926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1006 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Dhiwar @ Chhotu S/o Shri Teras Ram Dhiwar Aged About 28 Years R/o Dadarkhurd, Police Station Thana- Civil Lines Rampur, Tehsil And Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Thana-Civil Lines, Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (11th September, 2026) The matter has been listed for admission as also on I.A. No.01/2026, an application for grant of interim relief. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 02. The present revision under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) has been 2 preferred by the applicant/accused challenging the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba in Sessions Trial No.52/2026, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 250 BNSS seeking his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”), has been rejected. 03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the victim were residing in the same vicinity and, over a period of time, developed a love relationship and also had physical relations with each other with mutual consent. It is submitted that subsequently, when the applicant declined to marry the victim, she lodged a written complaint against him, resulting in registration of the FIR and filing of charge- sheet under Section 69 of BNS. Learned counsel contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that the relationship between the parties was consensual, without there being any false or deceitful promise of marriage on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 69 of BNS are not made out. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the factual circumstances, the material collected during investigation and the conduct of the victim, has mechanically rejected the application for discharge. The impugned order is, therefore, perverse and unsustainable in law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated 07.09.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat and another, SLP 3 (Crl.) No.11526/2026 [2026 INSC 987]. Hence he prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the offence under Section 69 of BNS. 04. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned order and submits that, upon consideration of the charge- sheet and the material collected during investigation, sufficient material is available on record disclosing a prima facie case against the applicant. It is submitted that no ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out and the revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record with the revision. 06. The applicant has placed on record a copy of the charge-sheet. A perusal of the written complaint dated 26.02.2026 lodged by the complainant/victim, on the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.150/2026 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, would show that the applicant and the victim initially came into contact with each other through telephone conversations, which gradually developed into a love relationship. It has been specifically alleged that on 04.07.2025, the applicant went to the house of the victim and established physical relations with her. The complaint further contains a specific allegation that thereafter the applicant repeatedly established physical relations with the victim for 4 about eight months on the pretext of marrying her and subsequently refused to marry her, and was going to marry another woman. The aforesaid allegations have also been reiterated by the victim in her statement recorded by the police under Section 180 of BNSS. Thus, the prosecution material, at this stage, contains specific allegations that the applicant established repeated sexual relations with the victim on the representation/pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. 07. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and determine whether the material, if taken at its face value, discloses sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is entitled to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion arises against the accused, but it is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or undertake a mini-trial. At the same time, the Court is not expected to act as a mere post office for the prosecution and must apply its judicial mind to the material on record, the broad probabilities emerging therefrom and the basic infirmities, if any, apparent on the face of the record. However, at this stage, the Court is not required to conclusively determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution witnesses, the ultimate evidentiary value of their statements, or whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed in proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. If 5 the material on record gives rise to a strong or grave suspicion regarding the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, the matter ordinarily deserves to proceed to trial, where the evidence can be tested by way of examination and cross-examination. 08. It would be apposite to refer to Section 69 of BNS, which provides as under: “S. 69 Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc. Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry 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, or marrying by suppressing identity” 09. In the present case, the allegations contained in the written complaint/FIR, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS and the other material collected during investigation, when considered at their face value, disclose that the applicant allegedly established sexual relations with the victim repeatedly on the pretext of marriage for a considerable period and thereafter refused to marry her. At this preliminary stage, these allegations cannot be brushed aside or disbelieved so as to hold that no offence under Section 69 of BNS is prima facie made out. The crucial question as to whether the applicant 6 had, at the time of making the promise of marriage, the requisite intention to fulfill it or whether the relationship was entirely consensual and the subsequent refusal to marry was merely a case of a bona fide failure to fulfill a promise, involves appreciation of the surrounding circumstances and the evidence to be adduced during trial. Such a question cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined in favour of the accused at the stage of discharge when the prosecution material, taken at its face value, raises a strong suspicion regarding the commission of the alleged offence. 10. Learned trial Court, while considering the application under Section 250 of BNSS, has referred to and considered various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, upon examining the charge-sheet and the documents accompanying the same, has recorded a finding that sufficient material is available on record which, prima facie, indicates involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. On a careful consideration of the material placed before this Court, this Court finds no reason to take a different view at this stage. 11. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani (supra) is concerned, the same is of no help to the applicant. In the cited case, the appellant/accused therein refused to marry the victim because his mother did not permit it, and his earlier promise of marriage made to the victim was not found 7 ill-intended. In the present case, however, the prosecution allegations are materially different. The victim has specifically alleged that the applicant repeatedly established sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. Whether such promise was, in fact made, whether it was false from its inception, whether the applicant had intention to fulfill the promise when it was made, and whether the physical relationship was induced by such promise, are all matters which require appreciation of evidence. 12. It is also significant that the applicant sought to rely upon the alleged consensual nature of the relationship. However, the mere existence of a relationship or the fact that the parties were acquainted with each other does not, by itself, conclusively negate the prosecution allegation of a false promise of marriage. The legal effect of the alleged consent and the circumstances in which such consent was given would necessarily depend upon the evidence brought on record during trial. 13. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor acted perversely in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 250 of BNSS. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the material available in the charge-sheet and the relevant legal principles. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is, therefore, made out. 8 14. Consequently, the revision being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, is dismissed. 15. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the application for discharge and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.09.15 10:01:59 +0530