Chattisgarh High Court
In Re. Designated Courts For Mps/Mlas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ROHIT
KUMAR WPC No. 1509 of 2022
CHANDRA
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
In Re. Designated Courts For MPs/MLAs
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Order Sheet
17/03/2026 Dr. N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari,
appears as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate for the State/respondents.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has submitted the current status report of the respective trials, which are stated to be pending. The details are as under:
Updated Status Report of pending MPs/MLAs cases for the Month of February, 2026 Name of Name of the Case No. Party Name Sections Status Sr. District Court Report received from the concern Court 1 Balodabazar 3rd ADJ Criminal State Vs Section Fixed for Balodabazar case Kishore 153(A), 12.03.2026 No.2818/2 Navrandge & 505(1).
2 024 and Ors. (Devendra 153(1)(B), 39/2025 Yadav (MLA) 505(1) (C), 109,120(B),1 47, 148, 186, 353,332 333,307, 435, 436, 341, 427 IPC & 3,, 4 PDPP Act, CJM Baloda Bazar Criminal State Vs. Section 186, Fixed for Case No. Pramod 353, 294, 11.03.2026 1354/2024 Sharma + 11 427, 332, 34 Others (For IPC MLA) 2 Janjgir- CJM Criminal State of C.G. Section 147, vfHk;kstu Champa Janjgiir case No. Vs. 294,452,323, lk{; gsrq 116/2025 Vedprakash U/s 149,427 Sahu & + 7 IPC others, accused Baleshwar Sahu CJM Criminal State of C.G. Section Disposed on Janjgiir case No. Vs. Baleshwar 329(4),296,3 11.02.2026 1558/2025 Sahu 51(2),115(2) B. NS CJM, Criminal State of C.G. Section vfHk;kstu Janjgir case No. Vs. Gautam 420,647, lk{; gsrq 34/2026 Rathore & anr, . 468,471, 34 accused IPC Baleshwar Sahu 3 Kabirdham CJM, Kawardha Criminal State of C.G. 147, 148, For the (Kawardha) Case No. Vs. Ashok 149, 109, evidence 135/2022 Kumar Sahu & 353, 332, date Ors. 153(A), 186, 18/03/2026 188, 295, 427, 120(B), 3 144, 152, 440, 452, 455, 295(K) IPC & 3 Prevention of Damage Property Act CJM, Kawardha 1592/2025 State of C.G. U/s 147, 186, For the (Old No. Vs. Vijay 353, 447 IPC evidence 456/2021 Sharma & Ors. & 3 date
(Vijay Sharma - Prevention of 18/03/2026 Sitting MLA) Damage Property Act st 4 Raipur 1. 1 District & Special State Vs. 420,467, Fixed for Additional Session Case Arunpati 648, 471, 10.03.2026 Judge Raipur No.01/202 Tripathi & 120 B IPC 4 Others (Sitting and U/S 7 & MLA Kawasi 12 Lakma) Prevention of corruption Act 1988, amendment Act 2018
2. Special Judge ED ED Vs. 3, 4 Fixed for (Prevention of 03/2023 1. Devendra Prevention of 20.03.2026 Money laundering Singh Yadav Money Act ) Raipur (Sitting) Laundering
2. Chandradev Act, 2002 Prasad Roy (Former)
3. Special Judge ED ED Vs Kawashi 3, 4 Fixed for (Prevention of 05/2024 Lakhma Prevention of 06.03.2026 Money laundering Money Act ) Raipur Laundering Act, 2002
4. 1st Civil Judge Criminal State of 341,147, Fixed for Upper Class /Chief Case No. Chhattisgarh IPC 10.03.2026 Judicial Magistrate 666/2025 Vs. Damrudhar Gariyaband (C.G.) Pujari and 4 other (Ex MLA) st
5. 1 Civil Judge Criminal State of 341,147, Fixed for upper Class /Chief Case No. Chhattisgarh IPC 10.03.2026 Judicial Magistrate 667/2025 Vs.. Govardhan Gariyaban(C.G.) Manjhi and other (Ex MLA)
6. J.M.F.C. Rajim, Criminal State of 186, 147, Fixed for Gariyaband, Case Chhattisgarh 149, 341 IPC 16/03/2026 Raipur 391/2024 Vs. Rohit Sahu and other
7. CJM Raipur 22283/ State of 147, 188, Fixed for 2013 Chhattisgarh 353, 332, 11/03/2026 Vs.Sanjeev 186(149) IPC Shukla and other(Devendra Yadav) 5 Rajnandgaon 1. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
& Sessions Judge, Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468 IPC NRrhlx<+ Rajnandgaon CGPDI others. Section 10 mPp No.. 1. Madhusudan CGPDI Act, 04/2020 Yadav (Ex. MP) U;k;ky; ls WPCR No. 164/2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
2. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
& Sessions Judge, Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
NRrhlx<+
Rajnandgaon CGPDI others. IPC Section
mPp
No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
05/2020 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act, U;k;ky; ls
WPCR No.
174/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 09-
5
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
3. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
NRrhlx<+
Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section
mPp
Rajnandgaon No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI 05/2021 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act, U;k;ky; ls WPCR No. 172/2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
4. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@
District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
mifLFkfr @
Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section
tkudkjh gsrq
Rajnandgaon No..04/202 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI 1 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
5. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@ District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468, mifLFkfr @ Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section tkudkjh gsrq Rajnandgaon No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI 02/2021 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
6. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@ & Sessions Judge, Case Junied and 467, 468, mifLFkfr @ Rajnandgaon CGPDI No. others. IPC Section tkudkjh gsrq 06/2021 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI Yadav (Ex. MP) Act, The State/respondents have filed I.A. No. 1/2026 seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of 6 Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Sharma & 10 Others), arising out of Crime No. 137/2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha).
In addition, the following proposals for withdrawal, three PUDs have been received through the Registry for appropriate orders of this Court:
(i) PUD dated 13.06.2025 sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No. 391/2024 (State v. Rohit Sahu & Others);
(ii) PUD dated 30.01.2026 sent by the learned 1st Civil Judge Senior Division/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No. 666/2025 (State v. Damrudhar Pujari & Others);
(iii) PUD dated 30.01.2026 sent by the learned 1st Civil Judge Senior Division/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No. 667/2025 (State v. Govardhan Manjhi & Others).
Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents submits that I.A. No. 01 of 2026, seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Sharma & 10 Others), arising out of Crime No. 137/2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha) has been preferred in accordance with law and in good faith and after due consideration of the records of the matter and independent application of mind by the competent authority. 7
We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The law with regard to withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 599, wherein it has been held that withdrawal from prosecution cannot be permitted mechanically and the Court must be satisfied that such withdrawal is in good faith, in the interest of justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. It has further been emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must apply independent mind and the Court must record its satisfaction regarding the existence of relevant material justifying such withdrawal.
The Apex Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya (supra), has observed that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of the Apex Court's order dated 16.09.2020 {Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 613} and the High Courts were requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16.09.2020, in light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.
The relevant portion of the order passed in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya (supra), reads as under:
"Misuse of Prosecutor's Power under Section 321 CrPC
7. Learned amicus has drawn our attention to various instances 8 across the country, wherein various State Governments have resorted to withdrawal of numerous criminal cases pending against M.P./M.L.A. by utilising the power vested under Section 321, Cr.P.C. It merits mentioning that the power under Section 321, Cr.P.C. is a responsibility which is to be utilized in public interest, and cannot be used for extraneous and political considerations. This power is required to be utilized with utmost good faith to serve the larger public interest. Recently, this Court in State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith, {(2021) 17 SCC 318, held as under: pp. 350-51, para 25) "25. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the CrPC can now be formulated:
25.1 Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution; 25.2 The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice; 25.3 The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution;9
25.4 While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons;
25.5 In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that:
(a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes;
(b) The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law;
(c) The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given;
(d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice;
and
(e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose 10 unconnected with the vindication of the law which the public prosecutor is duty bound to maintain;
25.6 While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution subserves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated; and 25.7 In a situation where both the trial judge and the revisional court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings. The Court may in exercise of the well- settled principles attached to the exercise of this jurisdiction, interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge or of the High Court to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent."
8. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former M.P./M.L.A. shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo-motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16.09.2020. The High Courts are 11 requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16.09.2020, in light of guidelines laid down by this Court."
Learned Advocate General has also relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Meghwal & Others {2023:RJ-JP:41416}, wherein a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has granted leave for withdrawal of the prosecution.
Upon perusal of the I.A. No. 01 of 2026 and PUDs placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the proposals for withdrawal have been made upon due consideration by the competent authority and do not appear to be mala fide or intended to defeat the course of justice.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2026 stands disposed of. Leave is granted to the State/respondents to withdraw from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Sharma & 10 Others), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha). The application for withdrawal from prosecution shall be considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on its own merits, in accordance with law, in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya (supra).
Further, the PUD dated 13.06.2025 in respect of Criminal Case No. 391/2024 (State v. Rohit Sahu & Others), and PUDs dated 30.01.2026 in respect of Criminal Case Nos. 666/2025 (State v. Damrudhar Pujari & Others) 12 and 667/2025 (State v. Govardhan Manjhi & Others) wherein the learned Magistrate concerned has sought guidance from this Hon'ble Court with regard to the applications filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. by the State seeking withdrawal from prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that leave be granted and the learned Magistrate concerned shall consider and decide the said applications on their own merits, in accordance with law, in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya (supra).
It is ordered accordingly.
The concerned trial Courts are directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate consequential orders on the applications filed under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C.
The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Courts for necessary information and compliance, forthwith.
Let the matter be listed again on 16th of April, 2026 on which date, the updated status report shall be placed before this Court by the Registrar (Judicial).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra