Chhattisgarh High Court judgments

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that anticipatory bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita cannot be automatically denied in cases involving consensual adult relationships, even if the offense is under Section 376(2)(N) IPC. The ruling emphasizes that prolonged relationships and consent negate the presumption of coercion, reinforcing bail jurisprudence under the new criminal procedure code.

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to a driver accused of transporting 86.25 kg of ganja, holding that mere presence in a vehicle containing commercial quantities does not establish prima facie knowledge under Section 483 BNSS. This ruling reinforces that passive participation without intent or control cannot override the presumption of innocence, setting a critical precedent for low-level transporters in NDPS cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be determined by the policy norms in force on the date of application, not the date of the government servant's death. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court's holding in N.C. Santosh, ensuring fairness for dependents seeking government employment under compassionate grounds.

Chhattisgarh High Court quashes criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC after a Rs. 25 lakh settlement, holding that continuation of prosecution post-compromise amounts to abuse of process when allegations lack merit. The ruling reinforces that matrimonial disputes resolved through mediation should not be perpetuated as criminal cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that dependency, not rigid financial tests or formal documentation, determines eligibility for compassionate appointment. The judgment underscores that a divorcee daughter financially reliant on her deceased father qualifies as a dependent, setting a precedent for flexible interpretation of service schemes.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that the state's physical use of private land for public projects without compensation or notification breaches Article 300A, even if the landowner delays filing a claim. The judgment reinforces that due process and compensation are non-negotiable, regardless of procedural delays by the landowner.

Insurers under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot escape third-party liability merely by alleging suppression of previous policy dates unless they produce signed, verifiable evidence from the insured. The ruling reinforces that valid policy status on the accident date is decisive, shifting the burden squarely onto insurers to substantiate their defenses - a critical win for claimants in motor accident cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court reinforces that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, only designated Medical Boards-not revenue officers-have the authority to assess or invalidate disability certificates. Retrospective invalidation based on subsequent medical tests violates natural justice and jurisdictional limits, protecting persons with disabilities from arbitrary administrative actions.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that a Tahsildar must execute a Section 14 SARFAESI Act possession order within 30 days, even if the borrower has filed a Section 17 application before the DRT, unless a stay order is granted. The ruling reinforces that statutory duties under the SARFAESI Act cannot be deferred on procedural grounds, ensuring timely asset recovery for secured creditors.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that unchallenged eyewitness testimony and an FIR under IPC Sections 279 & 337 conclusively establish driver negligence, entitling the victim to compensation. The insurer must prove the driver's license was invalid to evade liability, reinforcing claimant rights under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that 50 years of continuous forest land possession entitles occupants to apply for a Forest Rights Certificate under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act. The court stayed eviction until the Collector adjudicates the pending application within 60 days, reinforcing that administrative delays cannot justify coercive action against forest dwellers.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reduced the sentence to time served for possession of 9.6 kg ganja, recognizing that intermediate quantity combined with excessive trial delay undermines the proportionality of punishment. This sets a precedent for courts to prioritize justice over rigidity in NDPS cases where procedural delays have prejudiced the accused.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the enhanced minimum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh under the amended Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to accidents occurring before the 2018 amendment, as the change is substantive and beneficial. This decision significantly expands claimants' rights, ensuring fairer payouts for victims of older accidents where insurers previously relied on outdated limits.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a consensual physical relationship ending in a broken marriage promise does not automatically amount to sexual exploitation under BNS Section 69 unless there is evidence the accused never intended to marry from the outset. This sets a critical boundary between emotional betrayal and criminal fraud, protecting individuals from misuse of sexual offense statutes in private relationship disputes.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that candidates must hold the precise degree title specified in recruitment advertisements, regardless of whether their university offers an equivalent specialization under a different name. This sets a rigid precedent for public service commissions nationwide, effectively barring applicants with substantively similar but nominally different degrees from eligibility, reinforcing textual over substantive interpretation in public employment.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that revenue officers cannot issue injunctions to halt construction in private land title disputes, reinforcing that only civil courts have the authority to adjudicate ownership claims and grant equitable relief. This clarifies a critical boundary in property law, protecting landowners from unauthorized interference by revenue authorities in civil matters.

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail where a property sale deed mistakenly listed a living person as deceased, emphasizing that mere clerical error, promptly corrected without fraudulent intent, does not attract charges under Sections 464-471 of the BNS. This ruling clarifies that procedural inaccuracies in land records, absent malice or deception, cannot be criminalized under forgery provisions, protecting innocent families from arbitrary arrest.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that Family Courts cannot defer alimony claims under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to post-divorce proceedings. The decision, grounded in Rajnesh v. Neha, ensures that financial relief is not delayed, protecting spouses - especially women - from prolonged economic uncertainty after marital breakdown.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a daily wage worker with over 240 days of service in each calendar year for two decades is entitled to regularization, even without formal appointment, as Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act protects continuous service regardless of employment label. This sets a critical precedent for thousands of unorganized sector workers denied permanent status despite long-term, uninterrupted service.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a promotion order issued before retirement, even if communicated post-retirement, creates a vested right to arrears and pension recalculations based on the date of the order, not its communication. This clarifies that government servants who receive delayed promotion orders retain full financial benefits tied to the higher post, reinforcing the principle that substantive rights accrue at the time of decision, not notification.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the state’s physical occupation of private land for public infrastructure, even when excluded from the official acquisition award, violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. This sets a critical precedent: compensation is not contingent on procedural paperwork but on actual deprivation of land use, affecting thousands of landowners in informal acquisition scenarios across India.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the absence of dowry demands in a suicidal note, coupled with inconsistent testimonies and no forensic evidence, fails to meet the burden of proof under Section 304-B IPC. The judgment underscores that mere harassment allegations without proximate dowry-related cruelty are insufficient for conviction in dowry death cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a candidate cannot be disqualified under a repealed two-child policy if the third child was born after the rule's omission. The judgment reinforces that administrative rules cannot be applied retrospectively to deny employment rights, setting a precedent for service law jurisprudence.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case, recognized as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC, may withdraw an acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC and re-file it under Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court. The court granted 60 days for re-filing, relaxing the limitation bar, aligning with the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial judgment.