BADRI PRASAD SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010410912026 2026:CGHC:45227-DB
AFR
Digitally signed
by ARPAN
SRIVASTAVA
Date:
2026.11.04
15:55:12
+0530
ARPAN
SRIVASTAVA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2729 of 2026
1 - Badri Prasad Sahu S/o Ballu Ram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Searangpur Kala, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G.
2 - Yashvant Singh Parihar S/o Shri Shiv Bihari Singh Parihar, Aged About 46
Years R/o Jawahar Ward Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla Addl. A.G.
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Narendra Kumar Vyas &
Honble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar
Order on Board
27.10.2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”),
seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed in connection with Crime
No. 338/2025, registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli,
for the alleged offences punishable under Section 299 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”), and Section 4 of the
Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 (for short, “the Act
of 1968”).

2
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, who
claims to be working as the Zila Mantri of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad,
lodged a report alleging that on 27.07.2025, at the house of Sunil
Kumar Lal situated at Tilak Ward, Mungeli, the accused, Badri Sahu,
was gathering persons belonging to the Hindu community for the
purpose of religious conversion and was performing rituals of christian
religion. It was further alleged that the act was intended to hurt the
religious sentiments of the Hindu community. On the basis of the said
report, the aforementioned crime was registered against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of the
FIR and the consequential proceedings are not sustainable in law as
the sanction to prosecute as per Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh
Dharmik Swantantra Adhiniyam 1968, on 07.07.2026 is illegal. It is
further contended that the requisite sanction is invalid as the sanction
order only indicate offence 299 of the BNSS and other allegations but,
does not indicates about specific sanction for commission of offence
under Section 4 of the Act of 1968, as such the continuation of the
criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. On these
grounds, learned counsel prays for quashing of the charge-sheet
pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mungeli.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State oppossing the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the validity and
legality effect of the sanction can be examined by the Trial Court in
accordance with law and, while hearing the petition under Section 528
of BNSS, 2023, validity cannot be ascertained as it requires the
appreciation of evidence and procedure of granting sanction. He

3
would further submit that from the sanction order dated 07.07.2026 it
would be crystal clear that the sanction has been granted for
commission of offence under Section 299 of the BNSS and also for
other charges on the facts mentioned in the FIR bearing Crime
No.338/2025 registered against the applicant which may be proved by
the evidence , as such, sanction for all the offences has been granted,
which is legal and in accordance with law and would pray for dismissal
of the present petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. From the submissions made by the parties the point emerges for
determination of this Court is whether, this Court while hearing petition
under Section 528 of the BNSS can ascertain the validity of sanction
granted by the State form commission of offence under Section 4 of
the Act of 1968.
7. To appreciate the point emerged for determination this Court is as to
consider the section 299 of BNS and Section 3, 4 and 7 of the Act of
1968 as well as to extract the relevant portion of the sanction order
dated 07.07.2026 which reads as:-
:- 338/2026, 15.05.2026.
संदर्भ आपकापत्रकमांकपत्रक्रमांक दिनांक
. 338/25
कृपयासंदर्भितपत्रअवलोकनकरें।आपकेद्वाराअपराधक्र धारा
299 . . . . . 1968 04
बी एन एस एवंछ ग धर्मस्वतंत्रयअधिनियम कीधारा के

प्रकरणमेंअभियोजनस्वीकृति चाहागयाहै।
. .
उक्तपत्रकेतारतम्यमेंअवरसचिवछ ग शासनगृहपुलिसविभागकेपत्र
LAW-42021/58/2026 HOME SECTION
क्रमांक रायपुरदिनांक
16.04.2026 2023
केमाध्यमसेभारतीयनागरिकसुरक्षासंहिता कीधारा
217 - , - ( . .)
केअधीनपुलिसथाना सिटीकोतवाली जिला मुंगेली छ ग केअपराध
-338/2025 , 32
कमांक मेंआरोपीबद्रीप्रसादसाहूपिताबल्लूरामसाहू उम्र
, , - , - ,
वर्ष निवासीग्रामसारंगपुरकला थाना बोडला जिला कबीरधाम हा०मु०
, ( . .),
मजगांवपारा तिलकवार्डमुंगेली छ ग केविरूद्रभारतीयन्यायसंहिता
2023 299
कीधारा तथाउक्तप्रकरणकीविवेचनामेंवर्णिततथ्योंकेआधार
, ,
परअन्यअपराधकेआरोप जोसाक्ष्यसेस्थापितहो केअभियोजनकेलिये

स्वीकृति प्रदानकीगईहै।
338/2025
चूंकि आपकेकोतववाली केअपराधक्र केप्रकरणमेंउच्च

कार्यालयद्वारा अभियोजनस्वीकृति आदेशजारी किया जाचुका है।

फलस्वरूपइसकार्यालयमेंकोईकार्यवाहीशेषनहींहै।तद्नुसारकार्यवाही

कियाजानासुनिश्चितकरें।

4
Section 299 – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to
outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its
religion or religious beliefs.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging
the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations or through electronic means or otherwise,
insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs
of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.
3. Prohibition of forcible conversion .
No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly
or otherwise, any person from onereligious faith to another
by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent
means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.
4. Punishment for contravention of the provisions of
Section
Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section
3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine
which may extend to five thousand rupees or with
both :Provided that in case the offence is committed in
respect of a minor, a women or a person belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes the punishment shall
be imprisonment to the extent of two years and fine up to ten
thousand rupees.
7. Prosecution to be made with the sanction of District
Magistrate .
No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be
instituted except by, or with the previous sanction of, the
District Magistrate or such other authority, not below the rank
of Sub-Divisional Officer, as may be authorised by him in that
behalf.
8. From perusal of the sanction order it is quite vivid that the said section
has been granted for commission of offence under Section 299 and for
the offence which is arising out of the same fact, it cannot be prima
facie said that no sanction has been granted by the State to prosecute

5
them for the offences under Section 299 and Section 4 of the Act of
1969. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that while
hearing the petition under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 528 of BNSS the High
Court can examine the validity of the sanction granted to prosecute
under the PC Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State
Vs. G EASWARAN Reported in 2025 INSC 397 has held in Paragraph
10 which reads as under:
10. It is not disputed that in the instant case, the
Special Court, as well as the High Court, while
dismissing the petition for discharge, examined the
allegations and arrived at clear findings that there was
a prima facie case against the respondent. The
impugned order revisits the earlier decisions without
any statable change in the facts and circumstances of
the case, traverses to the extreme end of the
spectrum, and concludes that: i) the wife of the
accused purchased the properties in the name of the
daughter having power of attorney; ii) that there was
no satisfactory evidence of Benami; iii) even if allowed
to prosecute, the chances of conviction were bleak; or
iv) the probability of conviction is low; and v) the
statements of witnesses do not warrant prosecution. It
is clear that the High Court jumped to the probable
conclusion of trial by not appreciating the limited scope
of Section 482 Сг.Р.С. Instead of determining "whether
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused" based on the material, it asked the wrong
question as to, "whether that would warrant a
conviction"10. We are of the clear opinion that the High
Court has exceeded the well-established principles for
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. In a same case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also examined the
issue whether validity of the sanction granted to prosecute the
petitioner has held that the High Court should not examine the validity
of sanction to prosecute under the PC Act.
12. Findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in
grant of sanction were premature. Validity of the
sanction is an issue that must be examined during the

6
course of the trial. In Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman,
Airport Authority of India, 12 this principle is
reiterated as follows:
"10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction
order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like
non-availability of material before the sanctioning
authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the
order of sanction having been passed by an authority
not authorised or competent to grant such sanction.
The above grounds are only illustrative and not
exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality
of sanction would fall in the same category like the
ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-
application of mind a category carved out by this
Court in Parkash Singh Badal, 13 the challenge to
which can always be raised in the course of trial."
(emphasis supplied)
“13. Similar view was taken in Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aswal 14,
where it was held that:
"15. All the above apart, time and again, this Court has
laid down that the validity of a sanction order, if one
exists, has to be tested on the touchstone of the
prejudice to the accused which is essentially a
question of fact and, therefore, should be left to be
determined in the course of the trial and not in the
exercise of jurisdiction either under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
(emphasis supplied)
“14.Thus, there is no doubt that the High Court
committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the
ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and
invalid. In conclusion, we find that the objections
raised in the revision petition against the Special
Court's order dismissing the discharge application
were identical to the grounds raised in the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.С., from which the present
appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent
and overlapping, the respondent could not
demonstrate any material change in facts and
circumstances between the dismissal of the revision
petition by the High Court and the filing of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Third, the
validity of the sanction can always be examined
during the course of the trial and the problems due to
the typographical error asalleged by the State could

7
have been explained by producing the file at the time
of trial. Fourth, it is settled that a mere delay in the
grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is
not a ground to quash a criminal case.”
10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
we are of the view that the question regarding the validity and legality
of the sanction, may be raised before the Trial Court and same can be
examined in accordance with law by the trial Court on the basis of the
material available on record. Further considering the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. ESWARAN (Supra)
we are not inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS to quash the charge-sheet at this stage. Accordingly,
the present Cr.M.P. deserves to the dismissed.
11. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the petitioner's contention regarding the validity of the
sanction. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the said contention
before the Trial Court, which shall consider and decide the same in
accordance with law, on the basis of the material available on record,
without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the present Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
(Sudhir Kumar)
JUDGE
JUDGE
A rpan