2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 1 — 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 115Victim Can't Be Compelled To Give Birth To Child Of Her Rapist: Chhattisgarh HC Allows Termination Of 24+ Weeks Old Foetus Of MinorCase Title: ABC (Minor) Through Natural Guardian XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 1The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday allowed the prayer of a minor rape victim for abortion of...
2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 1 — 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 115
Case Title: ABC (Minor) Through Natural Guardian XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 1
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday allowed the prayer of a minor rape victim for abortion of her 24 weeks 6 days old foetus and held that a victim/prosecutrix cannot be compelled to give birth to the child of her rapist.
While emphasizing the right to bodily autonomy of the victim/petitioner, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed –
“The victim of rape must be given that much of liberty and right to decide whether she should continue with the pregnancy or she should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy.”
Illegal Termination During Probation, Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Review Judgement
Case Title: State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Kirti Kumari Kanwar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 2
A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that a review cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new arguments without an apparent error or new evidence. Therefore, the employee, who was illegally terminated, was allowed to continue her service.
It was observed that the court may review its judgment or order, but application for review shall not be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC:
- If the person is aggrieved by a decree or order where an appeal is either not allowed or not preferred.
- If new and important evidence was discovered which was previously not available despite due diligence.
- If there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: Abhishek Bhaskar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 3
A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that failure to comply with a condition which was not stipulated in the recruitment rules or advertisement, cannot serve as a valid ground for rejecting a candidate's appointment.
It was observed by the court that there was no requirement to submit documents showing mode of payment of salary because as per the application form, the candidates were required to submit the experience certificate, salary details, appointment order etc. And that there was no such condition in the advertisement also.
It was further observed by the court that instructions issued by the NCVT in the Management Manual for Industrial Trainee Institutes provide for payment of salary to vocational instructors of ITIs/ITCs (Regular/Contract basis) through banks/post offices only. But this condition was not mentioned either in the recruitment Rules or in the advertisement. Therefore, it was observed by the court that the instruction was directory in nature and its non-compliance will not lead to the rejection of the candidature of any of the candidates.
Case Title: Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 4
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday (09 January) turned down the plea of a Christian man seeking permission and police protection for performing last rites of his deceased father at the village common graveyard, as villagers aggressively protested against the same and threatened him of dire consequences.
The Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru rejected the prayer apprehending any untoward situation in the village and observed –
“…considering the fact that burial ground/graveyard of Christian community is available in nearby area, it will not be proper to grant relief as sought for by petitioner in this writ petition, which may cause unrest and disharmony in the public at large.”
Case Title: Yaad Das Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 5
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that stigmatic termination of contractual employees requires adherence to procedural safeguards and natural justice principles. The court set aside the termination order of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, and ruled that allegations of misconduct necessitate a proper inquiry and fair hearing even in contractual employment.
Case Title: Deepak Agrawal & Ors. v. Property Tax Assessment Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that it cannot exercise writ jurisdiction against an order by the District Judge, which is the Appellate Authority under the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, upholding imposition of property tax.
In doing so, single judge Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas cited Section 149 of the Act which prescribes that the Appellate Authority is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It said,
“From bare perusal of Section 149 of the Act, 1956, it is quite vivid that the District Judge is Appellate Authority of the order passed by assessing officer under the Property Act and the Appellate Authority is amenable to revisional jurisdiction to the High Court as per Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, it is held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable.”
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. B.P. Tiwari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 7
A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the State cannot withhold gratuity from a retired Revenue Sub-Inspector without any prior departmental inquiry. Following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court ruled that recovery from Class III employees post-retirement is illegal unless proceedings were initiated before superannuation. It explained that despite the allegations of financial misappropriation, the State's failure to commence an inquiry or issue a show-cause notice before retirement, invalidated the recovery.
Case Title: Dev Singh Parmar v State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 8
In a case pertaining to non-extension of services of a Rojgar Sahayak, the Chattisgarh High Court said that when such decision has civil consequences and is based on allegations of negligence and absence from duty, then it cannot be taken without adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Court observed that in the present case respondent authorities–Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, had failed to follow the mandatory procedures, which consisted of assessment of services by ACRs and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu said, "From the aforementioned facts and perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012 [Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012], it is appearing that it was mandatory upon the respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioner. In the present case, the respondents have not brought on record that the petitioner was supplied the copy of ACRs time to time of each year. The order of non extension of his services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the non-extension is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioner of negligence in discharging his services and remaining absent from service.”
"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 4
(Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mungeli) erred in not extending the period of service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the letter dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/2) is quashed," the court added.
Case Title: M/s Hira Carbonics Private Limited v. Kunwar Virendra Singh Patel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that additional evidence not forming part of the arbitral record can be allowed to be given only in exceptional circumstances while hearing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
It was held that “an application for setting aside the arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator, however, if there are matters not containing such records and the relevant determination to the issues arising under section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both the parties' the cross-examination of the persons swearing in to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary as the truth will emerge on the reading of the affidavits filed by both the parties.”
Case Title: Ambika Vishwakarma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and a connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 10
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that while considering the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances to determine whether it would constitute a 'small quantity or commercial quantity', not only the quantity of the 'offending drug' but the quantity of 'neutral substance' mixed should also be taken into consideration.
The division bench thus affirmed the conviction of two individuals found guilty of committing offence under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. However, their sentence of 12 years of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Essentially, the two appellants were convicted by the trial court for being found in possession of a total of 236 psychotropic substance syrups in which a substance called Codeine Phosphate was mixed.
Case Title: Jay Singh Rajput vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 11
The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Registrar General of the HC to initiate criminal prosecution against the complainant, who admittedly gave money to an accused to secure a job in the High Court for a wrongful purpose.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha also noted that despite several warnings issued by the Registrar General, the general public is becoming an easy target at the hands of the touts to secure jobs in the High Court and District Courts.
The court made these observations while denying bail to the accused, who was booked under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused allegedly deceived the complainant by promising to secure jobs for him and his friend at the High Court in exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,15,000. The court added that the complainant could not be said to be an innocent person in this case as he had himself parted with the money for getting a job in the High Court, which the court stressed was not justified in any manner in the eyes of the law and thus, he too was liable for criminal prosecution.
“…the Registrar General of this Court is directed to take adequate steps against the complainant also, in accordance with law in order to discourage such practice which may tarnish the image of the Pious Institution,” the Court directed.
Case Title: Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently denied relief to Sutlej Textiles, Rajasthan, against South Eastern Coal Field Limited, where the agreement for coal supply was terminated by the latter and the security deposit, along with other deposits, was forfeited.
The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the Court should not interfere with the invocation or encashment of a Bank guarantee so long as the invocation is in terms of the Bank guarantee.
The Court also relied upon on Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Puna Hinda where the Supreme Court held that parties must be relegated to alternate remedy before the appropriate forum in cases of contractual disputes.
Second Wife Of Husband Can't Be Prosecuted For Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Dr. Manju Sinha v. Smt. Pyari Dadsena & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that a person who is single and marries another whose marriage is substituting cannot be not liable under Section 494 IPC, but it is the person whose marriage is substituting who would be liable.
Interpreting the provision of law, the Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held –
“In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that this petitioner was already married by the time she married. A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is substituting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is substituting would be liable. A bare perusal of the Section 494 of the IPC, it is crystal clear that the word used by the Legislature “whoever, having a husband or wife living” commits bigamy as provided therein, and in the later half to fix liability against the “such husband or wife”, expressing the intension of the Legislature to prosecute the erring husband/wife, as the case may be.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar Jain vs. Induslnd Bank Limited Through Its Director & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 14
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that non-supply of the signed arbitral award may be a ground for setting aside an award, but on this ground alone, the execution proceedings cannot be quashed.
Case Title: Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 15
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for commission of the offence of rape under Section 376 or unnatural sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having any sexual intercourse, including every unnatural sex, with his major wife even without her consent.
Holding 'consent' of wife in sexual intercourse/unnatural intercourse to be insignificant, the Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed –
“Thus, it is quite vivid, that if the age of wife is not below age of 15 years then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife cannot be termed as rape under the circumstances, as such absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 376 and 377 of the IPC against the appellant is not made out.”
Case Title: Gorakhnth Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 16
The Chhattisgarh High Court has found Section 377, which provides punishment for unnatural offences, to be repugnant to Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC, which says that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.
While acquitting a husband from the charge of non-consensual unnatural sexual intercourse with his wife, the Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed –
“…it is quite vivid that the definition of rape as provided under Section 375 includes penetration of penis in the parts of the body i.e. vagina, urethra or anus of a woman for which consent is not required then unnatural sex cannot be made as unnatural offence between husband and wife, as such apparently, there is repugnancy in these two situations in the light of definition of Section 375 and unnatural offence of Section 377.”
Case Title: Gorakhnth Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 17
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to former Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma for his alleged involvement in the 'Nagarik Apurti Nigam' scam ('NAN scam') and misusing his constitutional office to influence outcomes of certain cases in favour of top administrative officers of the State.
While finding prima facie case against the applicant, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed –
“From the WhatsApp chats, extracted from the mobile phone of the accused persons, it is clear that he was closely connected with the accused persons and regularly in touch with the progress of the case. At that time, he was the Advocate General of the State and he ought not to indulge in such process but he actively engaged himself in relevant chatting with the accused persons who are the highest officers of the State.”
Case Title: Shahbaz Ahmed Seikh vs State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 18
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a deviation from Section 52- A of the NDPS Act or standing order will not be fatal to the prosecution case if the recovery and seizure of the contraband from the accused's possession are clearly established from other evidence in its cumulative effect.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.
Case Title: Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 19
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the order of conviction passed by a Special NIA Court against four persons, who were held guilty for their involvement in 2014's Tahakwara Naxal attack in which 15 security personnel were martyred and a civilian lost his life.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal termed naxal attacks to be threat to national security and observed –
“Attacks/ambush by Naxalites on security forces are not just criminal acts but are part of a larger insurgency that threatens national security, law and order, and democratic institutions. These assaults are premeditated, highly organized, and politically motivated, making them far more dangerous than ordinary crimes. Unlike common crimes such as theft, robbery, or even homicide, Naxalite attacks are acts of insurgency aimed at destabilizing the State.”
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 20
In a significant observation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has said that in the interest of upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens, the legislature must relax the 'rigid' twin conditions under Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act to provide 'wiggle room' to the courts to determine bail on a more case-to-case basis.
“This would prevent minor bail cases reaching the apex court as the lower courts are hesitant to oppose the inflexible provision. Nevertheless, the court should also recognize the legislature's wariness towards money laundering and pass orders such that it balances caution with liberty”, a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma further observed.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 21
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held that differentiating pension benefits based on the retirement date (pre-2006 vs. post-2006) violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an arbitrary classification without a justifiable relation to the objective of pension revision.
It was held by the court that all the pensioners form a single class, and therefore, such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons a cut-off date for the extension of benefits, especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when a similarly situated class is differentiated for the grant of any benefit.
It was further held by the court that the increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners, irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. And all the pensioners belong to one class. By such a classification/cut-off date, the equals are treated as unequals, and therefore, such a classification, which has no relation with the object and purpose of the revision of pension, is unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary.
Case Title: Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 22
A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that in absence of statutory provision for a waiting list, the unfilled vacancy cannot be claimed by the next candidate in merit, and such vacancies must be carried forward for the future recruitment
Case Title: Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 23
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major penalties on constables. The court observed that dismissal should be last resort and should not be inflicted until all other means have failed.
Case Title: SS v. AS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 24
The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphatically held that conducting virginity test on a woman is an affront to her right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and thus, no woman can be forced to undergo such test/procedure.
The Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma binned a plea made by the husband to conduct medical test on his wife to ascertain her virginity and held –
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India not only guarantees the right of life and personal liberty but also right to live with dignity, which is crucial for women. No woman can be forced to conduct her virginity test. It is the violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21.”
Case Title: Sunher Pudo v. State of Chhattisgarh (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 25
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that naxal attacks are politically and ideologically driven acts of insurgency that aim to destabilise the State and are different from ordinary crimes.
Explaining the difference between naxal attacks and ordinary crimes, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, stated,
"The attacks by the Naxals are premeditated, highly organised, and politically motivated, making them far more dangerous than ordinary crimes. Unlike common crimes such as theft, robbery, or even homicide, Naxalite attacks are acts of insurgency aimed at destabilizing the State. These operations involve ambushes, guerrilla warfare tactics, and the use of sophisticated weaponry such as IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and landmines. Security personnel, including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), police, and paramilitary forces, are often the primary targets. These attacks are well-planned and executed with the intent to inflict maximum casualties, weaken the morale of the security forces, and assert control over remote and forested regions.
Naxalites aim to overthrow the democratic system through violent means. Generally, Naxalites operate in remote, forested areas where collecting forensic or material evidence is difficult. Many of their attacks involve IED blasts, ambushes, and guerrilla warfare tactics, making it challenging to identify individual perpetrators. Local villagers, who often witness Naxalite activities, are reluctant to testify due to fear of violent retaliation. Since Naxalites exercise strong control over certain areas, any person cooperating with law enforcement becomes a target, leading to witness intimidation or complete silence. Unlike conventional criminals, Naxalites do not operate under identifiable names or keep proper records. Many of them use aliases, making it difficult for authorities to track their real identities. Hence, often the circumstantial evidences play a key role in convicting and sentencing the accused. Absence of direct evidence cannot automatically lead to a conclusion regarding innocence of the accused persons,” they added.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Surajram and 6 others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 26
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that there arises a compelling reason for interference of the Appellate Court when a judgment impugned is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, while overturning a wrongful acquittal by the Trial Court, observed,
“While exercising the appellate jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal, the High Courts or the appellate Courts are fully empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court is required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons.”
Case Title: Tulshi Steel Traders Propritor Pushpendra Kesharwani v. Purva Construction Propritor -Mitrabhan Sahu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 27
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated held that even if there is an infirmity in the cheque return memo, it would not render the entire trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour as nullity.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in his order observed that the trial court in the instant case had held that the cheques were given towards liability not as security as the accused is unable to rebut the same and could not adduce substantive evidence to affirm his stand that the cheques were given towards security.
"Thus, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, 1881 is held to be in favour of complainant, therefore, merely due to no seal and signature of cheque return forwarding memo by the bank, the finding of the trial Court that no presumption regarding dishonor of cheques can be drawn, is misconceived," the court underscored.
The court explained that the purpose of a cheque return memo is to inform the holder of the cheques that his cheques on presentation could not be encashed due to various reasons as may be mentioned in the memo.
“Even as per Section 146 of N.I. Act, 1881, the cheques return on presentation presumed the fact of dishonor of cheques unless and until such fact is disapproved. It is pertinent to mention here that neither Section 138 nor 146 of the N.I. Act, 1881 prescribed any particular form of cheque return memo, it is a nothing but a mere information given by the due holder of a cheques that cheques have been returned as unpaid. If the cheque return memo is not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the cheque return memo as invalid or illegal. The cheque return memo is not document which is required to be covered under Bankers Book (Evidence Act), 1891if there is any infirmity in the cheques return memo, it does not render entire trial under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 as nullity," it said referred to Delhi High Court's decision in Guneet Bhasin Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors and Madras High Court's decision in India Cements Investments Services Limited Vs. T. P. Nallusamy.
Case Title: Kavilas v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 28
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that the conviction of an accused cannot be recorded solely on the basis that he was last seen with the deceased and while basing the conviction on the last seen theory, it is safer for the Court to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution.
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, further held,
“…conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together and normally the Court is required to look for some other corroborative piece of evidence. Most importantly, the theory of last seen comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than accused being the perpetrator of crime, becomes impossible.”
Case Title: Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 29
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that pension is a hard earned benefit accrued to an employee and is in the nature of 'property', which enjoys the protection of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be taken away without due process of law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, further observed,
“A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant State Government to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.”
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited v. DCIT Circle-1(1), Raipur, C.G.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 30
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act not applicable if assessee voluntary discloses bona fide mistake.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari noted that “it is a case where the assessee came up fairly before the Assessing Officer correcting the error crept in while submitting the return and revised return that too before initiation of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has concealed the income.”
Case Title: X v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 31
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently reduced the sentence of a man convicted for having unnatural/anal sexual intercourse with a friend after watching certain pornographic contents on his mobile phone.
Justice Rajani Dubey, though maintained the conviction under Section 377 (Unnatural offences) IPC, was of the view that the accused-appellant deserves some reprieve, especially considering his incarceration for the last five years. The Bench observed –
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, overall evidence adduced by the prosecution, the mode and manner in which the incident had taken place, in my view, some reprieve in the matter of sentence deserves to be given to him.”
The court however set aside the man's conviction under Section 4 (Punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO after observing that the prosecution "failed to prove" that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
It however said, "but for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC, he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years. The amount of fine for the offence under Section 377 of IPC as imposed by the learned trial Court will remain the same and in default of payment thereof, he shall be required to undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment.The criminal appeal is allowed in part with the above modification in the sentence".
Case Title: Tarun Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 32
The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a man convicted for commission of offences under Section 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on same woman) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') after finding lack of evidence to suggest minor age of the victim so also upon being convinced that the sexual intercourse was consensual, and that the victim was 'habitual' to sexual intercourse.
Passing order for release of the appellant, who has already spent nearly six years in jail, the Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed –
“…she is a consenting party and even the Doctor PW-09 in her deposition has stated that she did not found any external and internal injury on the body of the victim as well as on her private part. The secondary sexual organs were fully developed and the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.”
Case Title: Ram Prasad Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 33
Dismissing a writ petition filed by an employee, who was convicted of a crime but later acquitted and demanded back wages thereafter, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the subsequent acquittal of the employee does not entitle him to back wages as such acquittal does not operate retrospectively to wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction.
The petitioner had prayed that he was entitled to back wages upon acquittal under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, which enables a suspended government servant, who is reinstated or would have been reinstated but for his retirement or superannuation, to be considered for pay and allowance for the period of suspension.
In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held,
“…it is not the case of the petitioner that he was placed under suspension and directed for reinstatement while revoking the suspension, as he was terminated from service on conviction of criminal charges by the jurisdictional criminal court, therefore, Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules would not be applicable.”
Case Title: Shyamlal v. Rambai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 34
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a decision taken by a Collector (Stamps) to not exercise power under Section 48B of the Indian Stamp Act which empowers him to order production of original instrument in case of deficiency in stamp duty, would not curtail power of the Court to impound the document under Section 33.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey in his order said, “In the present case, the documents were referred to the Collector (Stamps) by the learned Trial Court and he declined to exercise his power according to the proviso to Section 48B of the Stamp Act, but the decision taken by the Collector (Stamps) would not curtail the power of the Court to impound the document according to the Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The legislature has conferred the power to the Court to adjudicate proper stamp duty and penalty, if any, while impounding the document and thereafter for recovery proceedings, the documents can be referred to the Collector (Stamps).”
Case Title: Bhaskar Rohi v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 35
The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned an order of conviction passed by a Sessions Court against a man, holding him guilty of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') for having repeated sex with a married woman on the false assurance of marriage, since the husband of such woman did not make any complaint of adultery before any competent Court.
While passing the order of acquittal, the Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma reasoned –
“In the present case, the aggrieved party that is the husband of the prosecutrix has not made complaint of adultery before the court, therefore, ingredients of section 497 of Indian Penal Code has not been made out against the appellant.”
Case Title: Bilaspur Lokhit Sanskritik Seva Samiti, Malhar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 36
The Chhattisgarh High Court, by an order dated 2.04.2025, has dismissed a PIL filed by the President of Bilaspur Lokhit Sanskritik Seva Samiti, Malhar, praying before the Court to direct the state authorities to release a sanctioned amount of Rs.20 lakh for the smooth organisation of Malhar Mahotsav, which had not been organised for the past six years due to financial constraints.
In this regard, a Division Bench the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, held,
“…it is a private agenda and private motive of the petitioners, which cannot be termed as a public interest litigation and also considering that PILs primarily germinated in the idea of providing access to justice to all, especially those deemed by society to be voiceless and not for private cause or for private agenda/motive, we do not find any good ground for interference…”
Case Title: Shubham Sinha v. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 37
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a plea of a candidate who challenged his non-selection to the post of Stenographer on account of wrongful calculation of marks during skill test.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held,
“From perusal of the answer sheet of the appellant, it is quite vivid that the appellant has typed the word which was not dictated by the examiner, therefore, one mark was deducted for this and 13 marks have been deducted for other 13 mistakes committed by the appellant, accordingly 14 marks have been deducted, as such he was given 86 marks and the same procedure has been followed for each and every candidate, therefore, no discrimination has been done and a uniform system of marking was adopted, moreover, the allotment of marks is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court, as such the appellant cannot claim that he was discriminated or a wrong procedure has been adopted to deprive the petitioner from being selected.”
Case Title: Smt. Dukhiya Bai v. Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 38
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a plea of a woman who sought compassionate appointment after the death of her husband on the grounds that the family was financially well, despite her claim that the earning member of the family was unable to support her.
Referring to the compassionate appointment scheme, which was relied on by the deceased's wife on the ground that it provided no bar for considering compassionate appointment to dependent if there is already an earning member, a division bench Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, held,
“In the scheme, it is rightly taken into consideration that the object of granting compassionate appointment is only to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis. To seek the employment for one of the members in the family, the scheme further stipulates that extreme caution has to be observed that in no case, compassionate appointment is circumvented and misused by putting such ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family.”
Case Title: Abc Prescription Of Prosecutrix In The Closed Envelope v. Anil Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 39
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that Section 348 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) which grants court power to summon any person or examine them, or recall and re-examine already examined person, can only be invoked to meet ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons and must be exercised with great caution.
In the present matter the prosecutrix had moved a plea three years after other witnesses were examined, seeking her 're-cross examination' on the ground that she was aged about 18 years at the time of alleged sexual assault and thus needs to depose again.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal in his order referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ratan Lal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) where apex court had held that court's power to summon, recall or re-examine any person already examined under Section 311 CrPC (now Section 348 BNSS) is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. However the Supreme Court had underscored that this power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection, adding that recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice.
Case Title: Taman Singh Sonwani v. Central Bureau Of Investigation CBI, Anti Corruption Branch Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 40
The Chhattisgarh High Court has denied bail to the former Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, who was accused of leaking the State Service Examination paper and giving undue advantage to his family members.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while dismissing the bail application, strongly condemned the paper leak and remarked:
“…a person who indulges in facilitating leakage of question paper relating to competitive examinations, plays with the career and future of lacs of young aspirants, who are 'burning the midnight oil' to prepare for competitive exams. Such an act is more heinous than an offence of murder because by killing a person, only one family gets affected but by ruining the career of lacs of aspirants whole society is adversely impacted. Therefore, the alleged charges levelled against the accused persons including the present applicant can by no stretch of imagination be termed as ordinary charges. The action of the accused person is clear example of 'fence eating the crop'.”
Case Title: Jagarnath Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 41
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a petition seeking regularisation of services of an employee working in State's Ayurvedic Health Care Centre as Aushdhalay Sevak (Helper) on daily wage for two decades.
Ordering a proper assessment of the employee's case and records, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar to those daily wagers whose services were regularized, his services be also regularized from the same date.”
Case Title: Prahlad Rathour v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 42
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently upheld a trial Court order which rejected the prayer of the accused/defense seeking access to the social media accounts, i.e. Facebook and Instagram profiles of an alleged rape victim on the ground of possible breach of her privacy.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma discarded such request of the defense, which was made to verify authenticity of the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the accused/petitioner. The Single Bench observed –
“…in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer to access and view the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix in the trial Court. If permission is granted to examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix as also to play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix, then privacy of the victim may be compromised.”
Case Title: Abhinay Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 43
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that compassionate appointment is a one-time benefit, and if a post offered on compassionate basis is accepted even under protest, it constitutes exhaustion of the benefit and it cannot further be pressed for higher entitlement or upgradation.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a Gardener (Mali), who had accepted the post under protest, and claimed that he was qualified for the post of Driver, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held,
“The appointment under the scheme is subject to the availability of posts, administrative discretion, and satisfaction of other procedural requirements. Though the petitioner's name was recommended for the post of Driver but the final appointment was made to the post of Gardener (Mali). The petitioner, despite disagreement, joined the said post under protest on 14.09.2020. Applying the ratio of the above-referred cases to the present facts, once the petitioner has been appointed even under protest to the post of Gardener (Mali), the claim for up-gradation to the post of Driver is not legally sustainable. Acceptance of appointment, even under protest, amounts to exhaustion of the one-time benefit. There cannot be endless negotiation or choice in such appointments, which are an exception to the general rule of recruitment.”
Case Title: Raghu Midiyami v/s State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 44
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday (May 5) dismissed a plea challenging a State government notification under Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (CVJSA) 2005 (Special Public Safety Act) declaring an Adivasi organisation–Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM) as an unlawful organization.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noted that the organisation was not a registered one and in any case, the matter was pending review before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 5 of the CVJSA. It orally observed,
"If its is registered body then you have a right to say why it is banned. If it is a simple body, which according to you is not involved in such activities, then you are only saying. But for declaring an organization to be unlawful, first you have to tell us whether this organization has any legal sanctity. You have to first establish that. Otherwise there are so many persons in the society they may run an association and do activities..."
Case Title: Sandeep Kaur Gill v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 45
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that bona fide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions constitutes a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Income Tax Act for not invoking Section 271E of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari referring to Section 273B of the Income Tax Act stated that the word 'reasonable cause' has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words 'reasonable cause' would mean a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee.
Case Title: Lata Goyal v. The Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 46
In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that women employees who adopt children are also entitled to childcare/child adoption/maternity leave since it is a fundamental right of every mother under Article 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of the mode of attainment of motherhood, to give motherly care and attention to their new-born children.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru also clarified that no discrimination can be made between biological and surrogate/adoptive mothers while granting maternity benefits. The Single Bench held –
“There is no distinction between the natural, biological, surrogate or commissioning/adoption mothers and all of them have fundamental right to life and motherhood, contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and children born from the process of surrogacy/adoption have the right to life, care, protection, love, affection and development through their mother, then certainly such mothers have right to get maternity leave for above purpose.”
Wife Divorced On Ground Of Adultery Can't Claim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: X v/s Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 47
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a woman who is divorced on the ground of adultery as proved by her former husband, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma in his order said:
"Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 of the CrPC provides that if a woman lives in adultery, whose marriage is still subsisting, she is not entitled for maintenance from her husband. Suppose, a decree for divorce is granted on the ground of her living in adultery, can it be said that the said disqualification of which she was suffering from all along, during the subsistence of the marriage, will cease to exist, because of the decree for divorce?. The prudent answer to this question shall be an emphatic - "No". The decree obtained by the husband for divorce on proving the adulterous life of the wife cannot give a license to her to continue to live in illicit relationship and to get her right to claim maintenance revived. Therefore, I conclude that a divorced wife, who lives in adultery, viz., living in illicit relationship with man other than her former husband is disqualified from claiming maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code.”
Case Title: Raj Kumar Bothra v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 48
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot apply Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act), to disallow a claim where the issue involved, such as the deductibility of employees' contributions to EPF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va), was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2023) 6 SCC 451].
In this regard, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari held,
“…we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to the provisions contained under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 and instead could have resorted to the provisions under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, as on the date of issuance of intimation order dated 16.12.2021 by the Assessing Officer, exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the subject issue was highly debatable and ultimately, that issue was resolved by their Lordships in the matter of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (supra) on a later date.”
Case Title: M/s. A.K. Construction v. State Of Chhattisgarh and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 49
A full bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court while removing ambiguity with respect to Rule 23(1)(iv) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules has said that all matters relating to tender/contract concerning the Government/Public Undertaking/Local Bodies/Statutory Bodies are to be heard by a Division Bench.
Rule 23(1)(iv) of the Rules, 2007 prescribed that writ petitions relating to Contract/Tender concerning the Government/Public Undertaking/Local Bodies/Statutory Bodies shall be heard by a Division Bench. However, as per a Notification dated 04.04.2017, Rule 23(1)(iv) was substituted and a new Rule was enacted as per which writ petitions relating to award or termination of contract/tender concerning the Government/Public Undertaking/Local Bodies/Statutory Bodies shall be heard by a Division Bench. In this change lay the genesis of an ambiguity with respect to whether writ petitions on other aspects of contracts or tenders should be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench.
Answering a reference made by the division bench, a full bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi held that:
“In order to remove the sense of ambiguity with regard to listing of the cases relating to tender/contract either before the Single Bench or the Division Bench, which exists today because of the Notification dated 04.04.2017, we are of the considered opinion that all the matters relating to tender / contract concerning to the Government / Public Undertaking / Local Bodies / Statutory Bodies, should be heard by Division Bench and Rule 23(1)(iv) of the Rules of 2007 as it stood earlier prior to Notification dated 04.04.2017, should prevail.”
Case Title: Ram Krishna Soni v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director National Banking Division Group and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 50
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld disciplinary action taken against a State Bank of India (SBI) employee accused of misbehaving with a lady customer and of sexual harassment, thereby affirming the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect imposed on him.
In this regard, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,
“From the records, it has been further reflected that the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted by the Competent Authority and there is no allegation with regard to competence of the authority. Initially, the punishment of penalty of lowering two increments from his present pay scale with cumulative effect till retirement was imposed which was modified by the Appellate Authority to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, thus, the penalty inflicted is neither shocking nor disproportionate.”
Case Title: Mayasheel Retail India Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 51
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that while writ petitions can be entertained even when alternative statutory remedies are available, the same should only be done under extraordinary circumstances involving a breach of the principles of natural justice or when the procedure required for a decision has not been adopted.
In this regard, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held,
“…while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoking the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in “Thansingh Nathmal” and Titaghur Paper Mills” case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation”
Case Title: Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 52
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State to lift paddy stored at Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya (petitioner Society) to avoid financial loss to the Society due to prolonged storage and non-payment of commission.
In this regard, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held,
“…it appears that the quantity of paddy is being lifted from the concerned procurement centers time to time and the time for lifting paddy has been extended several times. From the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent State, it seems that the State Government is considering a decision regarding the lifting of paddy beyond the extended time. Furthermore, since the paddy has been collected by the concerned procurement centers in accordance with Government policy and the agreements entered into by the parties, it is the duty of the State to collect the said paddy whereas for various reasons, the paddy could not be collected on time. Since the State Government has extended the lifting time repeatedly, it is expected that considering the welfare nature of the State, the paddy would be lifted from the concerned procurement centers. This act is to prevent damage to the collected paddy due to the efflux of time, climatic conditions, natural hazards such as mice and other insects and to the fact that the rainy season is proximate.”
Case Title: Dheeraj Sahu @ Dheeraj Sarfraj v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 53
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the validity of an externment order passed by the District Magistrate of Mahasamund against a habitual offender, barring him from entering the boundaries of multiple districts of the state.
Through a writ petition, the petitioner, who had a long history of criminal conduct, marked by multiple cases and preventive actions between 1995 and 2023, with several acquittals resulting from compromise under coercion, and a continued threatening behavior, had sought the quashing of the externment order. An externment order is an order prohibiting a person from entering a specific area.
Dismissing the writ petition, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,
“Due to its criminal activities, an atmosphere of panic and terror has been created in the city and ward. Petitioner's free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order in the region, thus we are of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner is too dangerous for the people living in the locality. Looking to the number of criminal activities registered under different Acts and prohibitory actions taken against the petitioner, which are increasing day by day and also looking to the conduct of the petitioner by which free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has followed the due procedure of law and has rightly passed the impugned order against the petitioner under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1990.”
Case Title: Dilip Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 54
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently denied to quash FIR against seven Assistant Professors accused of compelling Hindu students to offer Namaz at a National Service Scheme (NSS) camp organized by their University at Kota in Bilaspur district.
The petitioners, while working as Assistant Professors at Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, were deputed to supervise the NSS camp held between March 26 to April 01, 2025. The FIR germinated from the complaint made by three students who attended the camp. They alleged that despite they being followers of Hindu religion, the petitioners compelled them to offer Namaz.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., LL 2021 SC 211 regarding quashing of FIRs. It further observed that the petitioners are already on bail, the investigation is going on and the charge-sheet has not been filed yet. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to make any observations on the merits of the case or to interfere at this stage.
Case Title: In Reference Of State Of Chhattisgarh vs. Santram Manjhwar and connected appeals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 55
The Chhattisgarh High Court last week commuted the death sentence of five accused who were convicted in January this year for gangraping and killing a 16-year-old girl and the murder of her two family members in 2021.
While upholding their conviction, a bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noted that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration the probability of the convict/appellants to be reformed and rehabilitated.
“…it has only taken into consideration the crime and the manner in which it was committed and has not given effective opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence to the appellants,” the bench further noted.
The Court added that while the brutal murder and rape of 16-year-old minor and tow of her relatives (father and 4-year-old niece) shocks the conscious of the society at large, but there is no evidence on record that the convict/appellants cannot be reformed or rehabilitated.
"...though the appellants have committed the offence of murder of three innocent persons out of which one was a minor girl of about 16 years and other was a minor girl of about 4 years. The minor girl aged 16 years was brutally raped before she was done to death which is barbaric, inhuman, heinous and extremely brutal. The murder has been done in a brutal manner by smashing the heads with stones. These are the incriminating circumstances, but there is no evidence on record that the convict/appellants cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. No criminal antecedents have been shown against them," the division bench noted.
Case Title: Prema Haththel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 56
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ordered the State to pay rupees two lakhs compensation to a woman whose son died while in police custody. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru reiterated that the State is liable to pay compensation in case infringement of right to life is established.
“The Courts have time and again deprecated such conduct on the part of the police/jail officials, which is spelt out above, and therefore the compensation, which is to be awarded, should also have a deterrent effect on the State so that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge in such acts which may result in loss of a human life, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” it said.
Case Title: Vijay Uraon v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 57
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that secondary evidence in respect of a document can be accepted only if it is established that the original document is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party against whom such document is sought to be proved. It was also held that a trial Court cannot accept a secondary evidence at the instance of a party during the cross-examination if it is suppressed during investigation and earlier stages of the trial.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru further clarified that the party which seeks to produce such evidence must prove the 'foundational fact' necessitating production of secondary evidence instead of primary evidence.
“It is trite that under the Evidence Act, 1872 facts have to be established by primary evidence and secondary evidence is only an exception to the rule for which foundational facts have to be established to account for the existence of the primary evidence.”
Case Title: Shashank Chopda v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 58
The Chhattisgarh High Court has denied bail to Shashank Chopda, accused of masterminding a large-scale criminal conspiracy involving fraudulent procurement of medical equipment and reagents under the "Hamar-Lab" scheme, causing a colossal loss worth Rs.411 crores to the State.
Noting that an economic offence of such a magnitude poses a threat to the financial health of the country, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha held,
“The present is a case which involves economic offence and which is considered to be more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country while shaking public confidence in the financial system. Such crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities cause financial harm and adversely impact the country's economic well- being and financial health. These offences typically involve fraudulent activities that affect both public and private financial interests.”
The Court elaborated,
“… it is not an ordinary financial crime but a crime in an organized manner. The documents appended with the petition prima facie discloses that the investigation has established that the applicant masterminded an elaborate and well- orchestrated criminal conspiracy by creating multiple fictitious companies in the names of his relatives and close associates. Under the guise of packaging, repair, maintenance, consultancy, and logistics services, he generated fraudulent invoices exceeding Rs.150 Crores…The acts committed by the applicant are not only grave economic offences but also crimes against the welfare of society at large. Granting bail to the applicant at this stage would not only embolden corrupt practices but also send a highly detrimental message to society, undermining public confidence in the justice delivery system.”
Case Title: Angelique International Limited versus Union of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 59
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that reliefs similar to those already sought before the Arbitrator and subsequently before the Commercial Court cannot be claimed before the writ court, especially when alternative efficacious remedies are available before the same forums for seeking such reliefs.
Case Title: Sant Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 60
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable who, nursing a grudge over duty allotment that deprived him of leave, opened fire on his colleagues, resulting in the death of four and injury to one.
Commenting that long working hours without leave in a strenuous naxal infested environment does not warrant murder of fellow comrades, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,
“The working conditions of armed forces personnel can be extremely dangerous and deadly involving exposure to variety of hazards both in combat and peace time situations. These hazards can lead to both immediate and long-term health problems, injuries, and even fatalities. However, the level of discipline is much higher for the armed force personnel than an ordinary civilian. They are adequately trained to face all sorts of pressures. Long working hours without leave and difficult environment does not give right to any person to vent his anger by causing death of his own colleagues.”
The Court added,
“The appellant, being a member of armed force was responsible for the security and safety of the people of the area from the naxalites but instead of performing his duty, the appellant took a drastic measure by opening fire indiscriminately with two assault rifles upon the fellow members, which, by no stretch of imagination can fall under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC. The appellant was well aware of the consequences and ordinarily, a member of armed force is issued only one rifles but the appellant was carrying two rifles at a time and had used both the rifles which goes to suggest that he had premeditation for causing the crime in question.”
Case Title: Chhatrapal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 61
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that an Enquiry Officer can do Cross-Examination and seek clarifications from witnesses during enquiry proceedings and it would not render the enquiry proceedings void.
It was observed by the court that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was further observed by the court that although the petitioner was not informed of his right to avail a defence assistant, but he being a trained police personnel effectively cross-examined witnesses and produced documents in his defence, which showed that he was aware of his legal rights. It was observed that the petitioner also did not raise any request at any stage of the proceedings, and the issue was raised for the first time before the court, which appeared to the court as finding flaws in the proceeding.
Case Title: Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 62
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a plea of Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi— a student enrolled in two simultaneous academic programmes, who requested modifications to his final exam timetable in order to prevent a scheduling conflict and pleaded conducting the exams at separate times or on different dates.
The petitioner was pursuing an M.S.W. from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University and LL.B from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya.
In this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,
“Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications in the final examination timetable for the two academic programmes, i.e. M.S.W. from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University and LL.B (Part-III, 2ND Semester) from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference.”
Case Title: M. Mohan Rao v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Tahsil & District Durg (CG)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 63
Dismissing a plea of reinstatement of a former Technician of Bhilai Steel Plant, whose services were terminated on account of habitual absence from duty, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that imposition of punishment in disciplinary matters is a managerial function which does not warrant interference by the Court unless the punishment seems patently shocking.
For context— petitioner remained absent from service for 140 days, from 01.05.1994 to 17.09.1994, without sanctioned leave from the Management. Prior to this too, he remained absent for which he had been punished on three occasions. The tenure of the petitioner was only eight years wherein he had been punished on several occasions before issuance of the order of termination.
Upholding the punishment of termination as proportionate, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held,
“…record of the case clearly establishes that the petitioner is habitual absentee and he remained absent for 140 days, I am of the view that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Even otherwise it is well settled position of law that the imposition of punishment is managerial function of the management and unless the punishment is so shocking or touches the conscious of the Court it should not be interfered by the Court.”
Case Title: Shri Vindhyavasini Maa Bilaimata Pujari Parishad Committee Through President Murli Manohar Sharma v. Vindhyavasini Mandir Trust Samiti
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 64
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a Pujari or priest is merely a “grantee” entrusted with the management of a deity's property and his role extends to that of a manager who has no proprietary rights over the land. He cannot thus be treated as Bhumiswami (owner of land).
In this regard, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru further observed,
“…the law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi. The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him i.e. to offer prayers. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami. It is also the trite law that the Pujari does not have any right in the land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of pujari do not stand on the same footing as that of Kashtkar Mourushi in the ordinary sense who are entitled to all rights including the right to sell or mortgage. It is pertinent to mention here that if the Pujari claims proprietary rights over the property of the temple, it is an act of mismanagement and he is not fit to remain in possession or to continue as a Pujari.”
Case Title: Arvind Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 65
The Chhattisgarh High Court has struck down Rule 8 Schedule-III Sr. No.1 Column No.5 of Chhattisgarh Public Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules 2016 prescribing a 3-year Engineering Diploma as sole educational qualification for recruitment of Sub-Engineers thereby excluding engineering degree holders–as unconstitutional.
Reiterating that any eligibility criteria must bear a reasonable correlation with the functional recruitment of the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed and the aptitudes necessary to fulfil those duties effectively, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,
“From the nature and complexity of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the exclusion of degree holders who are better with the requisite knowledge and technical skills is not only unreasonable but also counter productive to the objective of recruiting competent individuals for the post. This arbitrary restrictions undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Even, the same is also in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court thus concluded,
“Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 is declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and Ultra-Vires.”
Case Title: Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 66
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, seeking permission to cultivate and develop an ecosystem of industrial hemp/cannabis in the State, along with directives for defining, licensing, and establishing a regulatory framework for the growth and use of hemp for medicinal, industrial, and environmental purposes.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru taking note of the concerning increase in consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances in Chhattisgarh, observed that such substances not only have a detrimental effect on the body and mind of the consumer– often leading to commission of crimes in an inebriated state, but also ruins the family which suffers acutely, particularly when the sole bread earner is lodged in jail.
The Division Bench further held,
“Under the garb of this public interest litigation petition, this Court cannot encourage any such activity nor issue any direction to the State, which may turn to be a disaster in future. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to permit cultivation of cannabis in the State of Chhattisgarh is totally frivolous and baseless. The petitioner does not have any locus standi and it is not a genuine public interest litigation. It is well settled that no public interest litigation would lie if the same involves personal interests. The petitioner has approached this Court under the garb of public interest, seeking directions which fall squarely within the domain of legislative and executive policy of the State. Courts cannot direct the Government to make policy decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like narcotic control. The cultivation of hemp is prohibited under the NDPS Act, save for specific permitted purposes and through statutory procedure. Cannabis cultivation is generally prohibited except for medical, scientific, industrial, or horticultural purposes and only with government authorization. The petitioner has neither demonstrated any public interest nor followed the appropriate legal mechanisms. The present is a petition which can be termed as misuse of judicial process.”
Husband Can't Compel Wife To Share Mobile Or Bank Passwords: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: CM v. NG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 67
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that a husband cannot compel his wife to share private information, communications, personal belongings and even passwords of mobile phones and bank accounts.
The Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey also observed that any such compulsion by the husband shall amount to infringement of privacy and would also potentially lead to invocation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV).
“Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife's private information, communications and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cellphone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
Case Title: Bhupendra Netam @ Bhupendar Dhruw & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 68
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected an appeal against rejection of bail by Special Judge (NIA), Raipur to three persons allegedly involved in attacking security force with IED blast which killed an ITBP Constable.
While denying relief to the appellants, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the concerns relating to national security. In the words of the Court –
“Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when there is reasonable ground to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true under UAPA, the Court shall not grant bail to the appellants.”
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 69
The Chhattisgarh High Court has said that transfer of a case– particularly where it is sought by making allegations against a Presiding Officer, is a "serious matter" and the same cannot be allowed merely on a suspicion that a party will not get justice.
In this regard, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha explained,
“Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one Court to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise.”
The court further underscored that justice delivery system knows "no caste, religion, creed, colour" etc., and it is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false.
It said that the foundation of the system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers and if their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary.
“The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 447 of BNSS, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer.” the Single Judge added.
Merely Saying 'I Love You' To Girl Not Sexual Harassment Under POCSO Act: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Rupendra Das Manikpuri
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 70
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that merely shouting “I love you” to a girl does not constitute sexual harassment as defined under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Harassment Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), unless accompanied with 'sexual intent'.
While upholding the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused, the Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal observed –
“...the respondent shouted and expressed his love towards her saying "xxx I Love You". It is to be seen at this juncture that it was his solitary act while showing his “expression of love”, and a close scrutiny of her statements, vis-a-vis, the statements of her friends, would reveal the fact that it was not made with an intention of his “sexual desire”. It, thus, appears that the alleged expression of him alone would not constitute “sexual assault” as provided under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.”
ITC Not Available On Cess For Electricity Supplied To Residential Township: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 71
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that input tax credit is not available on cess for electricity supplied to residential township.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal stated that the electricity generated is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer(assessee), hence, the assessee would not be entitled for ITC to electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township.
The question before the bench was whether the maintenance of township and supply of electrical energy thereof is in the course or furtherance of business in terms of Section 2(17) read with Section 16(1) of the CGST.
The bench observed that ITC is a nature of benefit or concession extended to the dealer and it can be availed by the beneficiary as per the scheme of the statute subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. ITC is not the substantive right of the dealer, it is only a nature of benefit or concession extended to the dealer under the statutory scheme and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right, stated the bench.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 72
The Chhattisgarh High Court has used grounds of insanity to overturn a conviction of a 25 year old man (appellant) who murdered his father and grandmother after stating “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga.”
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 100 (two counts).
Noting that there was absence of motive and that the act was not driven by “rational intent”, but by a “disturbed mental condition”, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,
“The sudden, unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack on close family members, coupled with the statements made by the appellant like “I am Hanumanji, Bajrang Bali, Durga,” and his erratic behavior, align with classic signs of a psychotic episode typically found in cases of mental disorder involving delusions or hallucinations. Thus, the provisions of 22 of the BNS (Section 84 IPC) will come to the rescue of the appellant, as he was not knowing that what he was doing was wrong or the same is contrary to law. In order to ascertain the same, the imperative circumstances and the behavior preceding, attending and following the crime are the main consideration. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC is not sustainable.”
Case Title: Chhattisgarh Private School Management Association v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 73
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the validity of 'Chhattisgarh Non-Government Schools Fees Regulation Act, 2020' and 'Chhattisgarh Non-Government Schools Fees Regulation Rules 2020', challenged on the ground that it allegedly curbed autonomy of private unaided schools in fixing fee and administration.
In doing so the court underscored that hardship caused to an individual if any cannot be a ground to challenge the constitutional validity of an act/rule. It further said that when rules are framed under Article 309 of Constitution for "general good" cause hardship to an individual, the same cannot be a ground to strike down the rules.
Noting that the petitioners were a “registered society” that fall beyond the protection of Article 19(1)(g), a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held,
“Challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned Act and the Rules is available to “all citizens” and not available to the petitioners, as both the petitioners are society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1971 and do not fall under the definition of 'citizen'. Freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India can only be enforced by a citizen and the petitioners not being citizens cannot challenge validity of provision on the ground of violation of Article 19(1) of the Constitution…”
Rejecting the petitioners argument that determination of school fees by the Act of 2020 would cause serious hardship to the unaided private schools who are not getting any grant-in-aid from the State, the bench said:
"It is appropriate to notice that hardship of an individual, if any, cannot be a ground to challenge the constitutional validity of an Act/Rule.Where the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are for general good, but cause hardship to an individual, the same cannot be a ground for striking down the Rules...In that view of the matter, the Act of 2020 as also the Rules of 2020 are constitutionally valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 74
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that for seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental illness/disorder of spouse, sufficient evidence has to be led in the form of medical experts' testimony and reports of clinical diagnosis if any.
It thus said that mere filing of medical prescriptions is insufficient for proving mental illness of spouse.
Upholding the dismissal of marriage annulment plea made by a husband, the Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held –
“In matrimonial proceedings seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of mental incapacity, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. In the absence of any medical expert's testimony, and without any clinical diagnosis confirmed by competent witnesses, such a serious ground cannot be accepted as proved.”
Case Title: Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Smt. Shradha Tiwari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 75
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that taunting husband for being unemployed and making unfounded demands during a financially unstable period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, amounts to 'mental cruelty' and constitutes a valid ground for divorce.
The present case involved the wife (respondent)— who was a school principal school in Kurud, taunting her advocate husband (appellant) on his unemployed status during the pandemic, making unreasonable demands, engaging in verbal altercations over trivial issues, and subsequently deserting him and their son without according any reason, which compelled the husband to file for divorce.
Against this backdrop, Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed,
“It has been clearly deposed that after obtaining a Ph.D. degree and securing a high-paying job as a Principal, the respondent's behavior towards the appellant changed significantly. She became disrespectful, frequently taunted him for being unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged in repeated verbal altercations over trivial matters. These acts, including insults and humiliation during a time of financial vulnerability, clearly amount to mental cruelty as recognized under law.”
Case Title: MS v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 76
The Chhattisgarh High Court has altered the order of conviction against a man accused of having forcible sexual intercourse with niece, who had taken his refuge after being sexually assaulted by her father, on the ground that no clinching or legally admissible evidence is available on record to establish her minority.
While modifying the conviction from Section 376(3) IPC which penalizes rape on a woman under sixteen years of age to Section 376(2)(f) IPC (rape by relative) as well as order of sentence from life to 10 years imprisonment, a division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held –
“…it is clear that the regarding the prosecution's evidence with respect to the age of the victim, no clinching and legally admissible evidence has been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the victim was minor on the date of incident, despite that the learned Trial Court has held her minor in the impugned judgment. Hence we set aside the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that on the date of incident, the victim was below 16 or 18 years of age.”
Case Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 77
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year's balance.
Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires the assessee to provide proof of income and provide a proper explanation of the source of such unexplained income.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Sahu and another v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 78
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash FIR against employees of Elastic Run– a logistics company providing delivery services to Flipkart, which delivered a prohibited knife that was subsequently used as a weapon for committing robbery and murder.
The specific allegation against the employees of ElasticRun— Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Senior Area Manager) and Harishankar Sahu (Delivery Service Agent), was that despite prior warnings issued by the police to e-commerce platforms regarding delivery of dangerous weapons, Flipkart and its logistics partners continued to deliver such items, including the knife which was used to commit murder and robbery. Accordingly, offences under Section 125(b) (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and Section 3(5) (criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were registered against the employees of ElasticRun.
Refusing to quash the FIR, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,
“…we are of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR specifically alleges that the knives ordered by the accused persons through Flipkart, which were prohibited under the Arms Act, were delivered through the logistics chain of ElasticRun where the petitioners were employed, despite prior communications and warnings from the police authorities to e-commerce platforms to desist from supplying such prohibited items.”
Case Title: Himalaya Rav v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 79
In an important development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to interfere with the decision of the State Public Service Commission (CGPSC) not to issue admit cards for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service to the candidates who were not enrolled with the Bar Council at the time of issuance of advertisement for recruitment, i.e. 23.12.2024.
Further, purely as an interim measure, the Commission was then ordered to permit the candidates to fill their online forms even if they are not enrolled as an Advocate. The said changes were directed to be notified to the aspirants by way of a corrigendum to be published in widely circulated newspapers and other forms of media.
“It is also made clear that this order would operate in rem and not in personam and even those candidates who have not approached this High Court seeking for the aforesaid relief, shall be permitted to avail the benefit of the present order,” it had clarified.
Case Title: Saroj Kshemanidhi vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 80
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the State can interchange reservations among disability categories, so excluding visually impaired candidates for Commerce faculty posts is not illegal.
It was observed by the Court that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the appropriate Government has the power to interchange vacancies among the five categories of benchmark disabilities if the nature of the post does not permit employment of a particular category. It was held that the State Government had validly identified the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce faculty as suitable only for candidates under One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL) categories because the nature of duties involved extensive writing and numerical work. Therefore, the exclusion of visually impaired candidates could not be termed illegal.
It was further observed by the Court that the appointing authority is the best judge to assess the suitability of candidates for a particular post. Further that judicial interference in academic and administrative decisions must remain limited. It was further held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on National Federation of Blind was misplaced, because the Supreme Court had recognized that if a post is not suitable for one category of disability, it can be identified for another.
It was held by the court that Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 allows interchange of categories with government approval, which was followed. The reservation was already provided to OA and OL candidates in commerce, therefore it was held that refusal to extend it to VH candidates was neither illegal nor arbitrary.
Case Title: Himalaya Ravi & Anr. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 81
The Chhattisgarh High Court on September 16 dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by scores of registered candidates of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2024, including Public prosecutors and Assistant public prosecutors, who were not enrolled as 'Advocates' with a Bar Council on the date of advertisement of the examination, challenging the denial of admit cards notwithstanding the fact that they were earlier allowed to apply for the examination.
In the reasoned order, which was made available on the website on Wednesday (September 17) evening, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru expressed apparent reluctance to entertain the pleas and criticised the ousted candidates for “attempting to secure backdoor entry.” It was further observed –
“A bald plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been taken by the petitioners which is without any foundation. A legislative provision prescribing qualifications for public employment cannot be struck down merely because a group of aspirants feels aggrieved. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any lack of legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional guarantees. What is urged is nothing more than a disagreement with policy, which is impermissible grounds for judicial interference.”
Compensation Received From NHAI For Acquisition Of Land Not Taxable: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Baid v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 82
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the compensation received against the acquisition of land from the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) is not exigible to tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).
Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under the Act.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal stated that once compensation is determined under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, as a necessary corollary, the benefits flowing from the provisions of the said Act, including exemptions from income tax, stamp duty and fees contemplated under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, would also have to be made applicable.
Case Title: Khorbahara Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 83
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that offences like demand for illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds amounting to moral turpitude are not private in nature but carry wider ramifications for society and cannot be quashed merely on the ground of a settlement.
It was held by the court that the allegations against the petitioner who was a government servant, pertain to the demand for illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds, which are acts amounting to moral turpitude. Such offences are not private in nature but carry wider ramifications for society. It was held by the court that offences involving corruption, abuse of official position, or moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the ground of a settlement.
It was further held that no written compromise had been entered into between the parties. It was concluded by the court that no case for quashing the FIR was made out. Consequently, the compromise application filed by complainant under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS was rejected by the court.
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 84
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to Chaitanya Baghel (son of former CM Bhupesh Baghel), who was alleged to be one of the "top leaders" of a syndicate involved in the Chhattisgarh Excise Department scam between 2019 and 2023.
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW/ACB) had registered offences under Section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed) and Section 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code against him. An anticipatory bail plea was subsequently rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma rejected anticipatory bail to the accused.
Case Title: Smt. Monika Tamrakar v. Prashant Kumar Tamrakar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 85
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision of granting divorce to a man whose wife called him a paaltoo chooha (pet rat) for obeying his parents and refusing to comply with her persistent demands of living separately from her in-laws.
In the present case— the appellant wife had deserted the respondent husband and the Family Court had accepted a plea of divorce intimated by the husband.
In this context, a Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held,
“The oral testimonies of the respondent and his family, the documentary evidence of coercion, and castigation of the appellant lie squarely within the legal framework of cruelty. The own admissions made by appellant through cross-examination, including acknowledgement of her desertion, further validate the case of respondent. Consequently, this appeal must fail. In view of foregoing discussion, we conclude that the husband has proved his case for the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and wife has failed to prove her case for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.”
Conditional Promotion Due To Financial Objections Serves State Interest : Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Smt. Anil Sinha vs State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 86
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that a promotion can be validly granted subject to conditions, such as being contingent on the outcome of pending inquiries involving serious financial objections, to protect the state's interest.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors vs Raghunath
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 87
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that non-payment of overtime allowance is a continuing wrong, and a fresh cause of action arises each time it is denied, therefore it overrides pleas of delay and laches.
Case Title: RAJA CHANDRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 88
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that anti-naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by SIT, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention.
Permitting a SIT probe into regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles, it said.
The Court thus dismissed a man's plea seeking constitution of SIT from outside the State to investigate the alleged fake encounter of his father–purported to be a Maoist–by security personnel.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in its order said:
"Anti-naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by the State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by the SIT, as prayed by the petitioner, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention. Routine operations conducted by security personnel in Naxal-affected areas aimed at maintaining law and order and combating insurgency fall within the domain of the State Police forces and Central Paramilitary Agencies operating under lawful authority. Directing investigation by SIT into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles. Only in instances where credible allegations of excesses, misuse of power, or violations of human rights arise, and where an impartial probe is deemed necessary to uphold justice, can the judiciary consider entrusting such matters to the SIT but no such circumstances exists in the present case. Hence, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner".
Case Title: Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs v. Jagmet & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 89
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that as per the Mitakshara school of law, a daughter is not entitled to inherit the properties of her deceased Hindu father, who died prior to the year 1956 i.e. year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act, if son is alive.
A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas also clarified that a daughter can claim her right over such property in absence of son. In the words of the Court –
“It is well settled legal position of law that as per Mitakshara Law, the daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father before the enactment of the Act, 1956…Under the Mitakshara law, even the self-acquired property of a male devolved exclusively upon his male issue, and only in the absence of such male issue did it pass to other heirs and as per Law of inheritance the self-acquired estate of a male would descend to his male issue and only in default of such issue would it descend to others.”
Case Title: Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 90
The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the ITC is not admissible on electricity supplied to a township maintained by Bharat Aluminium.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on the electricity supplied to the township maintained by Bharat Aluminium/appellant. This is because such supply cannot be said to have been made in the course or furtherance of the appellant's business, as contemplated under Sections 2(17) and 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The bench opined that the supply of electricity to the township is for the appellant's own consumption and is not directly connected to any taxable supply of goods or services carried out by the appellant in the course of business. Consequently, the claim for ITC in respect of such electricity is not permissible under the statutory framework.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. vs. Piyush Verma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 91
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar the continuation or conclusion of departmental proceedings. Further the stay on disciplinary proceedings pending a criminal trial should only be for a reasonable period, and that the prolonged duration of a criminal trial cannot be used by an employee to indefinitely delay departmental proceedings.
It was observed by the court that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not operate as an automatic bar to the continuation or conclusion of departmental proceedings. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. P. Zadenga was relied upon wherein it was observed that while it may be desirable or advisable in certain circumstances to stay disciplinary proceedings pending a criminal trial, it is not a matter of course. It was held by the Supreme Court that a stay should only be for a reasonable period, and that the prolonged duration of a criminal trial cannot be used by an employee to indefinitely delay departmental proceedings. It was further held that an acquittal in a criminal case does not, by itself, result in the closure of departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee.
Case Title: Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr. vs. Vikash Kothe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 92
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that dependent wife of a missing government employee can challenge his ex-parte termination and claim the service benefits of the missing employee who is presumed dead after seven years.
The central question for consideration by the court was whether a declaration by a civil court was necessary to presume a person dead in light of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was observed by the court that Section 108 provides for a legal presumption of death once it is proven that a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard from them.
It was further observed that a formal declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not mandatory when the facts leading to the presumption are undisputed. It was noted by the court that the employee had been missing and unheard of for over seven years was an undisputed fact.
Case Title: Austin Hyde Vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 93
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that mere chain pulling by a Railway employee without allegation or proof of absence of reasonable and sufficient cause does not constitute misconduct under Railway service rules.
It was held by the court that the charges against the petitioner were vague and unspecific, and the essential element of absence of reasonable and sufficient cause was neither alleged nor proved therefore, no misconduct was made out against him. It was concluded by the court that the Disciplinary, Appellate, Revisional Authorities, and the CAT had committed a jurisdictional error in upholding the penalty.
Case Title: Harish Kumar Chhabada v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 94
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that failure to raise a timely objection to jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act bars the assessee from challenging the assessment.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Shailendra Soni Vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 95
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that confirmation and promotion cannot be claimed retrospectively and deferment based on adverse Work and Conduct Report does not amount to discrimination.
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 96
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash the arrest and consequential criminal proceedings initiated against Chaitanya Baghel (petitioner) for his alleged involvement in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.
While the petitioner pointed out a slew of procedural lapses and irregularities in his arrest, such as— non-issuance of summons, baseless claims of non-cooperation, template grounds of arrest, and unwarranted coercive action, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, refusing to interfere with the arrest and the proceedings, held,
“… allegations of illegality in further investigation are not substantiated by any cogent material. The scheme of the PMLA permits the Investigating Agency to collect further evidence after filing of a complaint subject to the prior permission of the Special Court. As regards the non-cooperation and mechanical arrest, this Court finds that the issue involves disputed factual questions that cannot be conclusively determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Grounds of Arrest, though brief, refer to the necessity of preventing destruction of evidence, influencing of witnesses and tracing of proceeds of crime. Whether such reasons are adequate or not, is a matter of assessment by the trial court.”
Referring to Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)—which empowers an authorised officer to arrest a person if he, based on material in his possession, has “reason to believe” that such person is guilty of an offence under PMLA, and Section 50— which vests in the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director the power to summon any person whose attendance may be necessary from giving evidence or for producing records during the course of investigation, the Single Judge added,
“… Section 19 and Section 50 of the PMLA are distinct provisions and operate in distinct and well defined domains. The power under Section 50 of the PMLA (is not a pre-condition for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA. These are two separate and distinct conditions under the PMLA itself. Non-issuance of notice under Section 50 of the PMLA cannot be restrained to the Investigating Officer for arrest of accused under Section 19 of the PMLA. Therefore, non-issuance of notice under Section 50 of the PMLA to the petitioner is a procedural lapse which does not amount to illegality.”
Case Title: C.C.S. Rao Vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 97
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can only be reverted to the immediate lower post from which they were promoted and reverting them to a post lower than that is unsustainable and bad in law.
Case Title: In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation, Regarding Nails Plucked, Mouth Broken, Villagers Torture Bear To Death In Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 98
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State Government, particularly the Forest Department, to ensure strict enforcement of laws on animal welfare across the State and to periodically sensitise officers and public on prevention of cruelty towards wildlife.
The direction came in response to a suo-motu public interest litigation registered by the Court in April, based on an India Today news-report which claimed that villagers had allegedly tortured a bear to death in Sukma District.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru stated,
“… we direct the State Government, particularly the Forest Department, to continue its vigilant efforts to prevent cruelty to wildlife. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall ensure strict enforcement of the guidelines/policies/laws/rules and shall periodically sensitize officers and the public regarding animal welfare. Any future incident of similar nature shall be viewed seriously. If any future incident of similar nature is brought to the Court's notice, the matter may be reopened or revived for appropriate directions.”
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 99
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that challenge to a transfer order is generally not maintainable after the employee has joined the transferred post.
It was observed that the lecturer continued to work at the transferred school which confirmed the implementation of the transfer. It was held by the court that the appellant had no vested right to remain at his former posting once the transfer order was implemented. Finding no fault in the order of the Single Judge, it was upheld. Hence, the writ appeal filed by the Lecturer was dismissed by the court.
Case Title: Digbal Tandi v/s State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 100
Expressing concern at certain missionary groups accused of religious conversion especially in remote tribal areas in Chhattisgarh, allegedly targeting illiterate and impoverished families, the Chhattisgarh High Court remarked that "conversion by inducement" by such groups is a "social menace".
In doing so the court observed that this menace arises when conversion ceases to be a matter of personal faith but becomes a result of "inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability".
he court passed the order while upholding the action of the Gram Sabha in erecting 'hoardings/notice boards' at certain village entry points whereby the entry of Christian Pastors and converted Christians was barred, purportedly to prevent religious conversion of villagers through coercion or inducement.
Observing that religious conversion has long been a sensitive issue in India's sociopolitical landscape, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru said:
"Among the various forms of conversion, those allegedly carried out by Christian missionaries among poor and illiterate tribal and rural populations have generated particular controversy. While the Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the misuse of this liberty through coercion, inducement, or deception has become a matter of grave concern. The phenomenon of mass or motivated conversions not only disturbs social harmony but also challenges the cultural identity of indigenous communities. Missionary activity in India dates back to the colonial period, when Christian organizations established schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions"
Case Title: In The Matter Of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Based On News Item Published In Daily News Paper Haribhoomi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 101
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State Government to ensure strict implementation of the ban on the manufacture, sale, storage and use of Chinese Manja (synthetic thread commonly used for flying kites, banned by the Chhattisgarh Government in February 2017), which recently cost the life of a seven year-old child.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,
“The State Government shall ensure strict implementation of the ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, and use of Chinese synthetic thread (manja) throughout the State. The concerned authorities shall also conduct regular checks and monitoring to prevent its circulation in the market. Further, awareness campaigns should be undertaken through print, electronic, and social media to sensitize the general public regarding the dangers associated with the use of such hazardous material. The State is expected to remain vigilant and adopt all preventive steps to safeguard the lives and safety of its citizens.”
Case Title: Prahlad Prasad Rathour v State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 102
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the termination of a retired Indian Navy officer from the post of Food Inspector (post reserved for Ex.Serviceman), holding that his removal on the ground of alleged concealment of childhood criminal cases was arbitrary.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru referred to Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which defines “child in conflict with law” as a child who has not completed eighteen years of age and is alleged or found to have committed an offence; and Section 24(1) which removes all disqualifications attached to conviction or criminal proceedings against a CCL. In light of these provisions, the Division Bench held,
“Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been incorporated in order to give a CCL an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past. It thus provides that a CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act. A “CCL” on the date when the alleged offence has been committed is required to be dealt with under the Act, 2015 which declares that all criminal charges against individuals who are described as “CCL” be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the JJ Board. If a conviction is recorded by the JJ Board. Section 24(1) of the Act of 2015 specifically stipulates that CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further Section 24(2) of the Act of 2015 contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing all the relevant records of such conviction to be removed after expiry of the period of appeal or reasons as prescribed under the rules as the case may be.”
In light of the above explanation, the Court held,
“… considering that the appellant was a CCL at the time of the alleged offences, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(1) of the Act 2015, which removes all disqualifications attached to a conviction or criminal proceeding against a CCL. appellant's unblemished record of fifteen years in the Indian Navy, where his conduct was rated as “Exemplary” and “Very Good,” further reinforces his integrity and suitability for public service. The action of the respondents in terminating him without affording any opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice and fails the test of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Hariom Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 103
The Chhattisgarh High Court has advised Trial Courts to refrain from granting unnecessarily long adjournments, which delay the culmination of trial, and to instead fix short and continuous dates for recording evidence, particularly when the accused is in judicial custody.
In this regard, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed,
“... this Court deems it appropriate to observe that in several cases it has been noticed that the trial Courts tend to grant long adjournments even where the accused is in custody. Such practice not only delays the conclusion of the trial but also adversely affects the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, all trial Courts are directed to make earnest efforts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to fix short and continuous dates for recording evidence, particularly in cases where the accused is in judicial custody, unless there exists any unavoidable or compelling circumstance.”
Case Title: State Of Chhattisgarh v. Mangala Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 104
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that condonation of delay is not a rule but an exception, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government bodies, on whom the law of limitation equally applies.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “Government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few.”
Case Title: Ku. Smriti Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 105
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time (15 years), as it is meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sonwani v. Kumari Purnima
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 106
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a father is legally as well as morally duty bound to provide maintenance and marriage expenses to his daughter, even after she attains the age of majority.
While dismissing an appeal against maintenance order passed by Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held -
"The appellant/defendant, being the father of respondent/plaintiff, has a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried, even though she has attained the age of majority. He cannot deny to pay the marriage expenses on any ground whatsoever when he is getting a reasonably well salary by working as a Government Teacher…"
Case Title: Amit Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 107
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the authorities to take time-bound coercive action against Johar Chhattisgarh Party leader Amit Baghel, including his arrest, a thorough investigation and filing of a charge sheet in all pending FIRs registered against him for hate speech.
In doing so the court said that mere assertion of “State apathy” claiming that State authorities were acting arbitrarily, discriminately or with ulterior motive, without substantiating facts, is insufficient to justify judicial intervention.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru was dealing with a plea alleging ineffective State action against Baghel for allegedly propagating “continued and vitriolic hate speech” and promoting communal enmity. Dismissing the petition, the Court held:
"The Petitioner has not brought forth any cogent material to demonstrate that the investigating agency has either shut the investigation or refused to act on the FIRs. Mere dissatisfaction with the pace or nature of investigation cannot, in law, furnish a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Article 226 of the Constitution. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner, particularly those seeking directions for immediate arrest, the manner of investigation, supervision by a senior officer of a particular rank, and periodic status reports, amount to a prayer for judicial supervision and micromanagement of criminal investigation. Such reliefs, if granted, would impermissibly encroach upon the statutory domain of the investigating agency and violate the well-settled principle that the Court cannot direct the police to arrest a particular individual, nor can it predetermine the course or outcome of investigation.”
Case Title: Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 108
The Chhattisgarh High Court has struck down Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 (2025 Rules), which provided institution-based preference to alumni of state institutions, amounting to de-facto reservation, as ultra-vires the Constitution of India.
Rule 11(a) of 2025 Rules provided that admission to seats available in the State quota will be given first to those candidates who had either obtained MBBS degree from a medical college situated in Chhattisgarh or who are serving candidates. Rule 11(b) further provided that if seats remained vacant after giving admission to all eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a), then admission on such seats will be given to those candidates who had obtained MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside Chhattisgarh but are natives of Chhattisgarh.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,
“Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 are quashed being ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the State shall not discriminate between the candidates belonging to the categories mentioned in Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025.”
Case Title: A v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 109
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a minor rape and sexual assault survivor to terminate her 21-week pregnancy, reiterating that disallowing the same would be a violation of her right to bodily integrity, aggravate her mental trauma, and have a devastating effect on her physical, psychological and mental health.
Referring to the Supreme Court's dictum in Suchita Srivastava and Another v Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Court applied the “best interests” theory which requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu held,
“…there is no dispute that petitioner is victim of forcible sexual intercourse/rape. She is desirous of terminating pregnancy as she does not want to give birth to the child of a rapist. It is her personal choice to terminate pregnancy which the Court must respect as it is a facet of her personal liberty as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of Suchita Srivastava (supra). Continuation of pregnancy can gravely endanger her physical and mental health.”
Noting that the personal liberty of the petitioner has to be respected and it may be even more dangerous to the unborn child because “the society would not take the petitioner and her child properly and respectfully”, the Court further noted:
“…permitting rape victim in the present case to go in for medical termination of unwanted pregnancy would amount to compelling her to continue to bear such pregnancy for full duration and deliver the child, which would be violative of her bodily integrity, it would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects. This is violative of her personal liberty, to borrow the words of the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava (supra), because “a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of "personal liberty" as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
Case Title: M.L. Yadav vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 110
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement any time before it becomes effective under Rule 67(4) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, however, he is estopped from claiming consequential service benefits if he has availed post-retirement benefits.
It was observed by the Court that Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, permits a railway servant to seek voluntary retirement by giving a notice of three months. The employee submitted his notice on 17th February 2016, therefore, the intended date of retirement was 17th May 2016.
It was found by the Court that the employee applied to withdraw his VRS request, which was received by the department a day before his intended retirement was to become effective.
Case Title: Mrs. Shobha Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 111
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted relief to a knee-surgery patient (petitioner) after a hospital allegedly operated on the wrong knee and conducted an inquiry into the same through an improperly constituted committee.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition where the petitioner argued that the Committee– tasked with enquiring into her complaint regarding operation on the wrong (right) knee instead of the left knee, was not constituted in accordance with the law.
The Court referred to Section 13B of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (2010 Adhiniyam) which prescribes the procedure for raising grievances relating to wilful medical negligence, and Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 (2013 Rules), which mandates that the constitution of a committee of enquiry must be headed by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and should include a specialist doctor of discipline.
As the inquiry committee consisted of four members- all of whom were doctors, and was chaired by a doctor serving as an Assistant Professor at CIMS, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu held,
“From perusal of inquiry report, Annexure P-1, it is clear that the constitution and composition of the Committee which has conducted the inquiry on the complaint of petitioner, is not as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2013 and therefore, inquiry report submitted by the Committee which is not constituted in accordance with provisions of Rules, 2013 cannot be considered to be a valid report on complaint submitted by petitioner and, hence, in opinion of this Court, this inquiry report is having no force in eyes of law."
Case Title: Deepak Pandey vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 112
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that service tax deposited during the course of investigation cannot be denied refund merely on the ground of limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, especially when the department itself later drops proceedings and acknowledges non-liability.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed a tax appeal filed by a service tax assessee challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ₹14.89 Lakh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 113
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently upheld a decree of divorce passed in favour of a husband on the ground of 'cruelty' after he discovered that his wife had not had her menstrual cycle for 10 years subsequent to the solemnisation of their marriage.
Dismissing the appeal preferred by the wife, a Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held –
“Learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that issues No. 1 and 3 are in favour of the respondent/husband and rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of him. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment passed by learned Family Court.”
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 114
The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasised that filing a review by a new counsel, without obtaining the consent of the previous lawyer who argued the matter at the previous stage, is not a healthy practice, and has subsequently slapped cost of Rs. 50,000 on an individual who engaged different counsels at different stages of appeal and review.
In the present case, the petitioner was held guilty in a departmental enquiry and was imposed a penalty involving stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. Citing violation of principles of natural justice, this order was challenged in a writ petition in 2018, where a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the order of the disciplinary committee. The petitioner challenged the Single Judge's order in a writ appeal, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through a SLP which was also dismissed. Challenging the order passed in the writ appeal whereby the order of the Single Judge was upheld, the petitioner filed a review petition before the High Court on the grounds that the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine and not on merits.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, noted that the petitioner had engaged different counsel and different stages of appeal. The petitioner had initially engaged an advocate to pursue his case before the Single Judge, a different team of advocates in the writ appeal, and in the review petition, he engaged another counsel who filed the application seeking review of the order.
Referring to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and And v. N. Raju Reddiar [1997 (9) SCC 736]— where the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing a review petition by engaging a different counsel and termed such a practice "not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar", the Court noted:
“The writ appeal was pleaded and argued by the counsel, who was not there before the learned Single Judge and not here in the review petition. The counsel, who is arguing the present review petition has not raised any arguments in the writ appeal. The present counsel was not an arguing counsel, when the writ appeal was heard nor was present at the time of arguments. It would not be in the interest of the justice to permit such practice.”
Case Title: Deepak Pandey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 115
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has allowed a service tax appeal filed by an assessee, setting aside orders passed by the department and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had rejected a refund claim as time-barred under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 .
A Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing an appeal challenging CESTAT's order that denied refund of ₹14.89 lakh deposited by the assessee during an ongoing service tax investigation.
The Bench observed that limitation provisions under Section 102(3) could not be applied rigidly in circumstances where the assessee could not have asserted a refund claim until the investigation was formally closed. It emphasized that procedural requirements cannot defeat a substantive right to refund when tax has been collected without authority of law.
The Court held that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law, and any amount collected without legal backing must be refunded. Retention of such amounts by the department would amount to unjust enrichment.