Smt.Parvati Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3717 Chatt

                                1

                                                           NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                     CRR No. 609 of 2009

    Smt. Parvati Dewangan Wd/o Late Shri Narayan Lal
     Dewangan, aged about 59 years, R/o. C/o. Shri Liladhar
     Dewangan, Murrabhatti, Gandhi Nagar, Near Dewangan
     Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur, CG.
                                                  ---- Applicant
                           Versus
  1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer,
     Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, CG.
  2. Smt. Jagrati Dewangan Wd/o. Late Shri Deepak
     Dewangan, aged 25 years, R/o. Village Arjunda Tikari,
     P.S. Arjunda, District Durg, CG.
  3. Sewak Ram S/o. Mohan Das, aged about 56 years, Forest
     Guard, Gurur, District Durg, CG.
  4. Smt. Premlata W/o. Sewak Ram, aged 47 years, R/o.
     Village Arjunda Tikari, P.S. Arjunda, District Durg, CG.
     (2 to 4 are accused persons in the trial Court)

                                              ---- Respondents

For applicant - Shri Tanmay Thomas Adv. On behalf of Shri S.K. Thomas counsel for the applicant

For respondent/State - Shri Himanshu Sharma PL For respondents 2 to 4- Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

14/06/2022

This revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.PC was

initially filed by Smt. Parvati Dewangan being aggrieved by

the judgment dated 22.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 117/2007 (State

of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Jagriti Dewangan and others).

2. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court acquitted

the private respondents of the charge under section 306/34

IPC. It appears that the State Government did not prefer any

appeal/revision against the impugned judgment dated

22.7.2009. However, one Smt. Parvati Dewangan filed this

revision against the said judgment of acquittal.

3. From the record it appears that during the pendency of

this revision, the original applicant passed away and

thereafter an application for bringing LRs on record was filed

by one Sapna Dewangan. Said application (IA No. 01/2011)

was however dismissed as not pressed vide order dated

15.09.2011. Subsequently, no application for this purpose was

ever filed. All this shows that no one is interested in

prosecuting this revision petition after the death of original

applicant. Moreover, Shri Tanmay Thomas advocate appearing

today on behalf of the applicant pleads no instructions from

anyone regarding prosecution of this revision petition.

4. Accrodingly, this Court has no other optiton but to dismiss

the present revision petition for want of instruction as pleaded

by the counsel for the applicant. It is dismissed as such.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi