[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ankita Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
2026:CGHC:18296-DB
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.04.23
10:44:22 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 209 of 2026
Smt. Ankita Pandey W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey Aged About 30
Years R/o- Type -3, Ds 203, Kirandul, Police Station Kirandul, Tahsil
Bade Bacheli, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Law
And Legislation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi,
Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 - Ashish Kumar Pandey, S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 32
Years R/o- Q.No. 15/a, Street 24, Sector-7, Police Station Bhilai Nagar,
District-Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For State-authority : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22-04-2026
1. Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondents as well as Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned
counsel for Respondent No. 3.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks the following relief(s):
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue the writ of mandamus commanding upon the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dakshin
Bastar Dantewada (CG) and direct to the Learned
Trial Court to allow the application dated12.03.2026
(Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner /complainant
and permit her to exhibit the documents, in the
interest of Justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire relevant records from the
respondents.
10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief
though just and fit in the circumstances of the case
may also kindly be granted."
3. The brief facts of the case, as per prosecution are that the
petitioner is a resident of District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
and she was married to the respondent No. 3 on 18.02.2022 at
Raipur and soon after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and
dowry demands by the respondent and his family members,
leading her to lodge a complaint on 04.05.2022, pursuant to which
Crime No. 81/2022 was registered under Sections 498A/34 IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subsequently, the this
Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 quashed the proceedings
against other family members while directing continuation of the
case against the respondent. During trial, which was later
transferred to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC), Dantewada, the petitioner appeared for her evidence on
11.02.2026 with original documents, however, the learned Trial
Court did not permit her to exhibit the same, despite their
relevance and availability of photocopies on record. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved an application dated 12.03.2026 seeking
permission to exhibit the documents, but the learned Trial Court
neither allowed nor rejected the said application and instead fixed
the matter for further cross-examination on 15.04.2026, which
action is alleged to be arbitrary and illegal, compelling the
petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the action of
the learned Trial Court in not permitting the petitioner to exhibit the
original documents during her examination, despite the fact that
photocopies of the same are already on record and were seized
during investigation, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to
settled principles of law as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner had
duly moved an application dated 12.03.2026 seeking permission
to exhibit the said documents, however, the learned Trial Court
has neither adjudicated upon the said application nor assigned
any reasons for keeping it pending and, in the meantime, has
proceeded to fix the matter for further cross-examination, which
has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner's case. It is also
pertinent that some of the very documents sought to be exhibited
have already been relied upon by the respondent in his bail
application, yet the learned Trial Court has failed to consider this
material aspect. The petitioner, being the complainant, has a
valuable right to prove and exhibit relevant documents during her
evidence, and denial of such opportunity amounts to denial of fair
trial and may result in miscarriage of justice by unduly benefiting
the respondent. Hence, the impugned inaction and procedure
adopted by the learned Trial Court deserve interference by this
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ State would submit
that the learned Trial Court has proceeded strictly in accordance
with law and the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, and no illegality or
arbitrariness can be attributed to its actions. The petitioner was
duly afforded an opportunity to depose before the Court and her
examination as well as cross-examination have been conducted in
due course. It is further submitted that mere production of
documents does not ipso facto entitle a party to have them
exhibited, unless they are proved in accordance with law and
subject to objections, if any, from the defence. The application
dated 12.03.2026 filed by the petitioner is still under consideration
before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, no adverse inference
can be drawn at this stage. The scheduling of further cross-
examination is part of regular trial proceedings and cannot be
termed as illegal or arbitrary.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would submit that on the
subsequent dates of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner
remained absent and failed to appear before the learned trial
Court. It is further submitted that, owing to such non-appearance,
the matter had to be adjourned on several dates from time to time,
and due to the repeated absence of the petitioner's counsel,
unnecessary delay has been caused in the proceedings, thereby
impeding the expeditious disposal of the matter. Despite adequate
opportunities having been granted, the petitioner has failed to
diligently prosecute the case.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is limited to
the non-consideration of her application dated 12.03.2026 seeking
permission to exhibit the documents, which is still pending before
the learned Trial Court. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case or the admissibility of the documents, this Court
deems it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to consider
and decide the said application on the next date of hearing, strictly
in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned trial Court is
directed to decide the application of the petitioner filed on
12.03.2026 (Annexure-P/1) on the next date fixed before it, after
hearing the parties and in accordance with law.
9. It is further directed that the learned Trial Court shall ensure that
the proceedings of the trial are conducted expeditiously and no
unnecessary adjournment is granted to either of the parties, so as
to avoid delay in conclusion of the trial.
10. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika
