Atul Kumar Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15048

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Atul Kumar Ekka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 2834 of 2025

Important Points

Sexual intercourse in a long-term consensual relationship between educated adults, without evidence of a false promise made in bad faith from the inception, does not constitute an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, as a mere breach of promise is distinct from a deceptive promise.

Subject

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.69
Indian Penal Code: S.376, S.90
Indian Contract Act, 1872: S.19

Headnote

(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 69 - Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage - Long-term consensual relationship between educated adults - Absence of evidence to show that the relationship was induced by misconception of fact or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from the inception - Consent is an act of reason; distinction between mere breach of promise and a false promise made with the intention to deceive from the beginning - Continuation of prosecution in a voluntary and willing relationship amounts to an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 8, 9 and 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and the complainant, both employed as government teachers, were involved in a sexual relationship for approximately seven years. The complainant alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her, which induced her to engage in sexual intercourse, but he later refused the marriage. An FIR was registered under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, and the trial court took cognizance of the offence. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the ground that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were false.

Findings of Court:
The court found that both parties were well-educated adults who were aware of the consequences of their actions. The physical relationship was established consensually over a long period, and there was no evidence that the consent was obtained through a false promise made in bad faith from the inception.

Issues: Whether the sexual relationship between two educated adults over a period of seven years constitutes an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, or if it was a voluntary consensual relationship where the subsequent refusal to marry does not amount to a criminal offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a woman willingly engages in a long-term sexual relationship with a man, and there is no cogent evidence that the relationship was induced by a false promise made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held liable for sexual offences. A breach of a promise to marry is distinct from a false promise used as a deceptive means to obtain consent.

Result: Petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Tirkey
For the Respondents: Sourabh Sahu, Sudhir Kumar Sahu

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

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 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 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