Toman Das Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra (through video conferencing), learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent / State.

¶19

2

¶20

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:

¶21

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Chargesheet bearing Number 573/25, dated 13.07.2025; FIR No. 473/25 dated 25.04.2025 registered by p/s Supela, Smriti Nagar, Chowki, District Durg(C.G.) for offences u/s 376(2) (n) of IPC; Order taking cognizance dated 08.12.2025; the Criminal Proceedings pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Durg, C.G., in Sessions Trial No. 376/25 in case titled as "State of C.G. Vs Toman Das Sahu" and the Charges framed u/s 376(2)(n) of the IPC vide order dated 13.01.2026 in the interest of justice.”

¶22

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim (respondent No. 02), aged about 29 years, lodged a written complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that she came into acquaintance with the petitioner in the year 2020 during a social function, where they exchanged mobile numbers and thereafter started communicating and meeting each other frequently. It is alleged that on 03.10.2020, upon a telephonic call made by her, the petitioner visited her and subsequently they met on several occasions at different places including hotels and cohabited with each other. The victim has further alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage while concealing the fact that he was already married. On the basis of these allegations, FIR bearing Crime No. 473/2025 was registered against the petitioner, who was later

¶23

3

¶24

granted anticipatory bail by the Court in MCRCA No. 694/2025. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Trial Court and, upon committal, the matter is presently pending trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Durg (C.G.). It is further part of the prosecution record that subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet, the victim herself moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Durg, wherein she averred that she got engaged to the petitioner on 21.12.2021 and married him on 28.12.2021 according to Hindu rites and customs, and that both resided together as husband and wife and exchanged customary articles including streedhan. Thus, according to the prosecution version, while the victim has alleged that she was induced into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage, the record also reflects assertions of a subsequent marital relationship and cohabitation between the parties.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the victim are mature adults capable of taking independent decisions guided by their own prudence and wisdom, and that the material available on record itself reflects glaring contradictions in the stand taken by the victim, thereby rendering the allegations of rape false and baseless. It is contended that, as per the victim’s own averments made in proceedings before the Family Court, she got engaged to the petitioner on 21.12.2021 and their marriage was solemnized on 28.12.2021 in accordance with Hindu rites

¶26

4

¶27

and customs in the presence of family members, and that customary streedhan was also given, after which both resided together as husband and wife for a considerable period. In such circumstances, it is argued that the subsequent allegation of rape made in the FIR lodged after a lapse of several years is inherently improbable and amounts to misuse of beneficial provisions of law. Learned counsel further submits that cohabitation between spouses does not constitute the offence alleged, and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is also urged that the victim has taken mutually destructive stands in two different proceedings in one alleging that physical relations were established on the false pretext of marriage, and in the other asserting the existence of a valid marital relationship, which clearly indicates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to a strained personal relationship. According to the charge-sheet itself, the victim, being a mature woman, remained in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for several years without raising any objection, thereby negating any element of inducement or coercion. Hence, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶28

5. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the victim lodged a written complaint stating that in the year 2020 she had come to Bhilai for pursuing a makeup course and was residing in a rented accommodation

¶29

5

¶30

along with her friend. During that period, she came into contact with the accused Tomman Das Sahu at Bhilai, and owing to such acquaintance, the accused developed relations with her. It is alleged that on 03.12.2020 the accused visited her rented house and established physical relations with her against her will by inducing her on the false promise of marriage, and thereafter repeatedly took her to different hotels and places, including hotels at Rajnandgaon and Bhilai as well as a rented accommodation at Saket Nagar, Kohka, where he continued to establish physical relations with her on the same pretext. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence was registered and taken up for investigation. During investigation, the victim was medically examined at Government Hospital, Kohka, and vaginal slides were preserved for forensic examination. Her statement was also recorded before the competent Court, while statements of other material witnesses were collected and the places of occurrence were inspected. Hotel operators and staff were examined and relevant customer entry registers were seized, including records showing the stay of the accused and victim together in a hotel room, which were taken into custody under a seizure memo. It is further submitted that the accused had earlier obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court and, in compliance with the Court’s directions, was required to produce certain articles including the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the offence, which was subsequently seized and sent along with other

¶31

6

¶32

exhibits for chemical examination, the reports of which are awaited. Learned State counsel contends that, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, sufficient evidence has been found indicating commission of the alleged offence by the accused.

¶33

6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the stage at which the trial is presently pending, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence and examination of the credibility of rival versions, which can be appropriately adjudicated only during the course of trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material contained in the charge-sheet do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence or that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is

¶35

hereby dismissed .

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶37

Manpreet

Toman Das Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toman Das Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Manish Steels Vs Nmdc Limited

Shravan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Parveen Akhter Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shamim Hussain Vs South East Central Railway

Ashu Sen @ Gundul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh