Man Accused Of Gathering Hindus For Conversion: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash Case, Leaves Sanction Challenge For Trial

The petitioner sought to quash the charge-sheet arising from Crime No. 338/2025, registered for alleged offences under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner was gathering members of the Hindu community and conducting Christian religious rituals with a view to conversion and to hurt Hindu religious sentiments.

The petitioner argued that the sanction dated 7 July 2026 was invalid because it did not specifically sanction prosecution under Section 4 of the 1968 Act.

The State submitted that the sanction covered the offences arising from the facts in the FIR and that its validity could be considered by the trial court.

Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 requires that prosecution for an offence under the Act be instituted by, or with the previous sanction of, the District Magistrate or an authorised authority not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer; Sections 3 and 4 respectively prohibit forcible conversion and prescribe punishment for contravention.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court, but that jurisdiction is not ordinarily used to decide disputed questions concerning the legality or validity of an existing sanction where those questions can be examined at trial.

Relying on State v. G. Eswaran, 2025 INSC 397, and the principles quoted from Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and Director, CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aswal, the Court stated that objections to an existing sanction—including non-application of mind, want of authority, or lack of material—may be raised and determined during trial, where relevant factual issues can be considered.

The sanction order referred to Section 299 of the BNS and to “other offences” arising from the facts of the FIR, which, in the Court’s view, meant that it could not be said prima facie that sanction for prosecution under Section 4 of the 1968 Act had not been granted.

In any event, the petitioner’s objections concerned the validity and scope of an existing sanction. Applying G. Eswaran and the cited authorities, the Court held that those objections could be examined by the trial court on the relevant material and did not warrant quashing the charge-sheet under Section 528 at this stage.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the sanction challenge and left the petitioner at liberty to raise it before the trial court, which must decide it in accordance with law and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.