Priyanka Manohar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1037 Chatt

                                                                  Page 1 of 2


                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRA No. 1928 of 2019


1.      Priyanka Manohar D/o Shri Girija Shankar, Aged About 24 Years,
        R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur
        Ramanujganj (C.G.).

                                                              ---- Appellant
                                  Versus

1.      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police
        Station Basantpur, Civil And Revenue District Balrmapur
        Ramanujganj (C.G.).

2.      Tileshwar Thakur, S/o Late Bramha Thakur, Aged About 26 Years
        R/o Village Parasdiha, Jamaipara, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur
        Ramanujganj (C.G.).

                                                          ---- Respondents

For Appellant             : None.
For Respondent/State      : Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, P.L.

Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board

24/02/2022

1) This appeal is filed under section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/03/2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No. 09/2018; whereby the respondent No. 2 stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

               Conviction                        Sentence
         U/s. 354 of Indian Penal    R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-,
         Code (in short "IPC")       in default of payment of fine
                                     additional R.I. for 7 days.

2) There are as many as 05 numbers default pointed out by the Office, on 13/12/2019 though none appeared for the appellant, however, three weeks time was allowed to the appellant to remove the default. Again on 15/07/2021 none appeared for the appellant

despite repeated calls. Today, also none appears for the appellant and the defaults pointed out by the Office have also not been removed.

3) In these circumstances, there is no other option left with the Court, but to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the orders of this Court and it is dismissed as such.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Chandrakant