[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
In Re. Designated Courts For Mps/Mlas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1509 of 2022
In Re. Designated Courts For MPs/MLAs
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Order Sheet
22/04/2026 Dr. N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari,
(through Video Conferencing) appears as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vivek Sharma,
learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Government
Advocate for the State/respondents.
Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026 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
March, 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 case State Vs Section Fixed for
Balodabazar No.2818/2024 Kishore 153(A), 17.04.2026
and 39/2025 Navrange & 505(1),
Ors. (Devendra 153(1)(B),
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, Criminal case State Vs Section Fixed for
Balodabazar No.1354/2024 Pramod 186,353,294, 12.05.2026
Sharma + 11 427,332, 34
Others (Former IPC
MLA)
2 Janjgir- CJ.M. Criminal case State of C.G. Section 147, vfHk;kstu
Champa Janjgir No.116/2025 Vs. 294,452,323, lk{; gsrq
Vedprakash U/s 149,427
Sahu & + 7 IPC
others,
accused
Baleshwar
Sahu
CJ.M, Criminal case State of C.G. Section vfHk;kstu
Janjgir No.34/2026 Vs. Gautam 420,647, lk{; gsrq
Rathore & anr, . 468,471, 34
accused IPC
Baleshwar
Sahu
3 Kabirdham CJM, Criminal Case State of C.G. 147, 148, For the
(Kawardha) Kawardha No. 135/2022 Vs. Ashok 149, 109, evidence
Kumar Sahu & 353, 332, date
Ors. 153(A), 186, 22/04/2026
188, 295,
427, 120(B),
144, 152,
440, 452,
455, 295(K)
IPC & 3
Prevention of
Damage
Property Act
CJM, 1592/2025 (Old State of C.G. U/s 147, 186, Disposed on
Kawardha No.456/2021 Vs. Vijay 353, 447 IPC 28/03/2026
Sharma & Ors. & 3
Prevention of
Damage
Property Act
st
4 Raipur 1. 1 District A.C.B.Special State Vs. 420,467,, Fixed for
& Additional Case Arunpati 468, 471, 04.05/2026
Session No.01/2024 Tripathi & 120 B IPC
Judge Raipur Others (Sitting and U/S 7 &
MLA Kawasi 12
Lakma) Prevention of
corruption
Act 1988,
amendment
Act 2018
2. Special ED 03/2023 ED Vs. 3, 4 Fixed for
Judge 1. Devendra Prevention of 25.04.2026
(Prevention of Singh Yadav Money
Money 2. Chandradev Laundering
loundering Prasad Roi Act, 2002
Act ) Raipur
3. Special ED 05/2024 ED Vs Kawashi 3, 4 Fixed for
Judge Lakhma Prevention of 02.04.2026
(Prevention of Money
Money Laundering
loundering Act, 2002
Act ) Raipur
4. Chief Criminal Case State of 147, 188, Fixed for
Judicial No.22283/ Chhattisgarh 353, 332, 06/04/2026
Magistrate, 2013 Vs.Sanjeev 186(149) IPC
Raipur(C.G.) Shukla &
Devendra
Yadav
5. Chief Criminal Case State of 147, 341 Fixed for
Judicial No. 4819/2018 Chhattisgarh IPC 10.04.2026
Magistrate Vs. Deman
Raipur (C.G.) Prasad and
other Smt.
Udheswari
Paikra
6. Chief Criminal Case State of 353, 186. Fixed for
Judicial No. 4884/2018 Chhattisgarh 332, 427, 13.04.2026
Magistrate, Vs.. Akash 147, IPC
Raipur(C.G.) Sharma and
other
rd
7, 3 Special Criminal C.B.I. Vs 120 B, r/w Fixed for
Additional Case Kailash 469, 471 IPC 02/04/2026
Judge Raipur No.5465/2018 Murarka & & 67-A IT Act
to the Court of Others(Kailash
st
1 Civil Murarka, Vinod
Judge, Senior Verma,
Class, Raipur Bhupesh
Baghel Vijay
Bhatiya)
8. Chief Criminal Case State of 341,147, Fixed for
Judicial No. 666/2025 Chhattisgarh IPC 01.04.2026
Magistrate Vs. Damrudhar
Gariyaband Pujari and
(C.G.) other (Ex MLA)
9. Chief Criminal Case State of 341,147, Fixed for
Judicial No. 667/2025 Chhattisgarh IPC 01.04.2026
Magistrate Vs.. Govardhan
Gariyaban(C. Manjhi and
G.) other (Ex MLA)
10 .Additional Criminal Case State of 186, 147, Fixed for
Civil Judge, No.391/2024 Chhattisgarh 149, 341 IPC 04/05/2026
Class 1, Vs. Rohit Sahu
Rajim, and other
Gariyaband to
the Court of
Civil Judge
Class -1,
Raipur
5 Rajnandgaon 1. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
District & CGPDI No.. Md. Khalid and 467, 468 IPC NRrhlx<+ mPp
Sessions 04/2020 others. Section 10 U;k;ky; ls
Judge, 1. Madhusudan CGPDI Act,
WPCR No.
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP)
164/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 08-03-
2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
2. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
District & CGPDI No.. Md. Khalid and 467, 468, NRrhlx<+ mPp
Sessions 05/2020 others. IPC Section U;k;ky; ls
Judge, 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
WPCR No.
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
174/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 09-03-
2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
3. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
District & CGPDI No.. Md. Khalid and 467, 468, NRrhlx<+ mPp
Sessions 05/2021 others. IPC Section U;k;ky; ls
Judge, 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
WPCR No.
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
172/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 09-03-
2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
4. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ
District & CGPDI Md. Khalid and 467, 468, @mifLFkfr @
Sessions No..04/2021 others. IPC Section tkudkjh gsrq
Judge, 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
5. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ
District & CGPDI No. Md. Khalid and 467, 468, @mifLFkfr @
Sessions 02/2021 others. IPC Section tkudkjh gsrq
Judge, 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
6. Principal Special Case C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ
District & CGPDI No. Junied and 467, 468, @mifLFkfr @
Sessions 06/2021 others. IPC Section tkudkjh gsrq
Judge, 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
Rajnandgaon Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
The State/respondents have filed I.A. No. 2/2026 seeking leave of this
Court for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 135/2022 (State of
Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Kumar Sahu & Others), arising out of Crime No.
807/2021, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham
(Kawardha).
A PUD dated 12.03.2026 has also been received by the Registry of this
Court which is a request letter sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Balodabazar-Bhatapara, wherein it has been stated that Criminal Case No.
1354/2024, parties being, State of Chhattisgarh v. Pramod Sharma & Others,
is pending consideration in the said Court in respect of Crime No. 119/2022,
registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Balodabazar, for the offences under
Section 294, 506, 186, 353, 332, 427 and 34 of the IPC and that the
prosecution has filed an application under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023n (for short, the BNSS) {earlier Section 321 of the
Cr.P.C.} seeking withdrawal from prosecution.
Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents submits
that I.A. No. 02 of 2026, seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal from
prosecution in Criminal Case No. 135/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok
Kumar Sahu & Others), arising out of Crime No. 807/2021, 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.
We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record.
The law with regard to withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of
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
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;
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
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
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. 02/2026 and PUD 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. 02/2026 stands disposed of.
Leave is granted to the State/respondents to withdraw from prosecution in
Criminal Case No. 135/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Kumar Sahu &
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 12.03.2026 in respect of Criminal Case No.
1354/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Pramod Sharma & Others) wherein the
learned Magistrate concerned has sought guidance from this Hon'ble Court with
regard to the application filed under Section 360 of the BNSS (earlier 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 application on its 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 Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law
and pass appropriate consequential orders on the application filed under
Section 360 of the BNSS (earlier Section 321 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 14th May, 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
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
