D.S. Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 113 Chatt

                                        1


                                                                           NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                WA No. 10 of 2022
1.    D.S. Rajput S/o Late Pratap Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Av B-16
      Officers Colony Police Station Bankimongra Tehsil Katghora District
      Korba (C.G.)
2.    Jitendra Mishra S/o Late B.L Mishra Aged About 53 Years R/o H-No. D-4
      Officers Colony Dilwadih Tehsil Katghora District Korba (C.G.)
3.    K. Ramkrishna S/o K. Shrinivas Rao Aged About 55 Years R/o D-5
      Officers Colony Secl Korba District Korba (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Appellants
                                      Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Naya
      Raipur Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2.    The Superintendent of Police Korba (C.G.)
3.    Officer In-Charge of Police Station Bankimongra District Korba (C.G.)
4.    The Superintendent of Police Korba District Korba (C.G.)
5.    Gajendra Singh Tomar S/o Shri V.S. Tomar, Aged About 41 Years R/o
      Bhatgaon District Surajpur Chhattisgarh- Partner Of Firm M/s Gajendra
      Singh Tomar 334/3 Sharda Vihar Korba C.G. Office 334/3 Sharda Vihar
      Korba (C.G.)
6.    Sahtosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Surjitlal Sharma Aged About 41 Years
      R/o Sharda Vihar Near Mudadai Mandir Korba Tehsil And District Korba
      (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri N. K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

07.01.2022

Heard Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 25.10.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 370 of 2017.

3. Mr. Tiwari submits that the learned Single Judge erroneously observed

that charge-sheet has been submitted by the police after completion of the

investigation and accordingly, had directed that the trial be proceeded with. He

submits that, in fact, no charge-sheet has been submitted till date and

therefore, the edifice of the order of the learned Single Judge is based on a

non-existence fact.

4. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that in the return filed, it was not pleaded that the

charge-sheet has been filed. However, the learned Single Judge had observed

that in the return filed it is stated that charge-sheet had been submitted. He

endorsed the submission of Mr. Tiwari that till date, charge-sheet has not been

filed.

5. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to go into the merits of

this case and we dispose of this appeal, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an

appropriate application for review of the order dated 25.10.2021. In the event

of filing of any application for review, the same shall be considered in

accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on merits.

                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                                (N. K. Chandravanshi)
                 Chief Justice                                         Judge



Hem