[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
In Re. Designated Courts For Mps/Mlas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ROHIT
KUMAR WPC No. 1509 of 2022
CHANDRA
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
In Re. Designated Courts For MPs/MLAs
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Order Sheet
17/03/2026 Dr. N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari,
appears as Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate for the State/respondents.
Pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2026 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
February, 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 State Vs Section Fixed for
Balodabazar case Kishore 153(A), 12.03.2026
No.2818/2 Navrandge & 505(1).
024 and Ors. (Devendra 153(1)(B),
39/2025 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 Baloda Bazar Criminal State Vs. Section 186, Fixed for
Case No. Pramod 353, 294, 11.03.2026
1354/2024 Sharma + 11 427, 332, 34
Others (For IPC
MLA)
2 Janjgir- CJM Criminal State of C.G. Section 147, vfHk;kstu
Champa Janjgiir case No. Vs. 294,452,323,
lk{; gsrq
116/2025 Vedprakash U/s 149,427
Sahu & + 7 IPC
others,
accused
Baleshwar
Sahu
CJM Criminal State of C.G. Section Disposed on
Janjgiir case No. Vs. Baleshwar 329(4),296,3 11.02.2026
1558/2025 Sahu 51(2),115(2)
B. NS
CJM, Criminal State of C.G. Section vfHk;kstu
Janjgir case No. Vs. Gautam 420,647,
lk{; gsrq
34/2026 Rathore & anr, . 468,471, 34
accused IPC
Baleshwar
Sahu
3 Kabirdham CJM, Kawardha Criminal State of C.G. 147, 148, For the
(Kawardha) Case No. Vs. Ashok 149, 109, evidence
135/2022 Kumar Sahu & 353, 332, date
Ors. 153(A), 186, 18/03/2026
188, 295,
427, 120(B),
144, 152,
440, 452,
455, 295(K)
IPC & 3
Prevention of
Damage
Property Act
CJM, Kawardha 1592/2025 State of C.G. U/s 147, 186, For the
(Old No. Vs. Vijay 353, 447 IPC evidence
456/2021 Sharma & Ors. & 3 date
(Vijay Sharma - Prevention of 18/03/2026
Sitting MLA) Damage
Property Act
st
4 Raipur 1. 1 District & Special State Vs. 420,467, Fixed for
Additional Session Case Arunpati 648, 471, 10.03.2026
Judge Raipur No.01/202 Tripathi & 120 B IPC
4 Others (Sitting and U/S 7 &
MLA Kawasi 12
Lakma) Prevention of
corruption
Act 1988,
amendment
Act 2018
2. Special Judge ED ED Vs. 3, 4 Fixed for
(Prevention of 03/2023 1. Devendra Prevention of 20.03.2026
Money laundering Singh Yadav Money
Act ) Raipur (Sitting) Laundering
2. Chandradev Act, 2002
Prasad Roy
(Former)
3. Special Judge ED ED Vs Kawashi 3, 4 Fixed for
(Prevention of 05/2024 Lakhma Prevention of 06.03.2026
Money laundering Money
Act ) Raipur Laundering
Act, 2002
4. 1st Civil Judge Criminal State of 341,147, Fixed for
Upper Class /Chief Case No. Chhattisgarh IPC 10.03.2026
Judicial Magistrate 666/2025 Vs. Damrudhar
Gariyaband (C.G.) Pujari and
other (Ex MLA)
st
5. 1 Civil Judge Criminal State of 341,147, Fixed for
upper Class /Chief Case No. Chhattisgarh IPC 10.03.2026
Judicial Magistrate 667/2025 Vs.. Govardhan
Gariyaban(C.G.) Manjhi and
other (Ex MLA)
6. J.M.F.C. Rajim, Criminal State of 186, 147, Fixed for
Gariyaband, Case Chhattisgarh 149, 341 IPC 16/03/2026
Raipur 391/2024 Vs. Rohit Sahu
and other
7. CJM Raipur 22283/ State of 147, 188, Fixed for
2013 Chhattisgarh 353, 332, 11/03/2026
Vs.Sanjeev 186(149) IPC
Shukla and
other(Devendra
Yadav)
5 Rajnandgaon 1. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
& Sessions Judge, Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468 IPC
NRrhlx<+
Rajnandgaon CGPDI others. Section 10
mPp
No.. 1. Madhusudan CGPDI Act,
04/2020 Yadav (Ex. MP) U;k;ky; ls
WPCR No.
164/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 08-
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
2. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
& Sessions Judge, Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
NRrhlx<+
Rajnandgaon CGPDI others. IPC Section
mPp
No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
05/2020 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act, U;k;ky; ls
WPCR No.
174/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 09-
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
3. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, ekuuh;
District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
NRrhlx<+
Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section
mPp
Rajnandgaon No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
05/2021 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act, U;k;ky; ls
WPCR No.
172/2021 esa
ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 09-
03-2021 ds
vkns'kkuqlkj
LFkfxr
4. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@
District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
mifLFkfr @
Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section
tkudkjh gsrq
Rajnandgaon No..04/202 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
1 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
5. Principal Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@
District & Sessions Case Md. Khalid and 467, 468,
mifLFkfr @
Judge, CGPDI others. IPC Section
tkudkjh gsrq
Rajnandgaon No.. 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
02/2021 Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
6. Principal District Special C.G. State Vs. 420, 406, rdZ@
& Sessions Judge, Case Junied and 467, 468,
mifLFkfr @
Rajnandgaon CGPDI No. others. IPC Section
tkudkjh gsrq
06/2021 1. Madhusudan 10 CGPDI
Yadav (Ex. MP) Act,
The State/respondents have filed I.A. No. 1/2026 seeking leave of this
Court for withdrawal from prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of
Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Sharma & 10 Others), arising out of Crime No. 137/2019,
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha).
In addition, the following proposals for withdrawal, three PUDs have been
received through the Registry for appropriate orders of this Court:
(i) PUD dated 13.06.2025 sent by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No.
391/2024 (State v. Rohit Sahu & Others);
(ii) PUD dated 30.01.2026 sent by the learned 1st Civil
Judge Senior Division/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband in
Criminal Case No. 666/2025 (State v. Damrudhar Pujari &
Others);
(iii) PUD dated 30.01.2026 sent by the learned 1st Civil
Judge Senior Division/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband in
Criminal Case No. 667/2025 (State v. Govardhan Manjhi &
Others).
Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents submits
that I.A. No. 01 of 2026, seeking leave of this Court for withdrawal from
prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Vijay
Sharma & 10 Others), arising out of Crime No. 137/2019, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 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. 01 of 2026 and PUDs 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. 1/2026 stands disposed of.
Leave is granted to the State/respondents to withdraw from prosecution in
Criminal Case No. 1592/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Vijay Sharma & 10
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 13.06.2025 in respect of Criminal Case No.
391/2024 (State v. Rohit Sahu & Others), and PUDs dated 30.01.2026 in
respect of Criminal Case Nos. 666/2025 (State v. Damrudhar Pujari & Others)
and 667/2025 (State v. Govardhan Manjhi & Others) wherein the learned
Magistrate concerned has sought guidance from this Hon'ble Court with regard
to the applications filed under 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
applications on their 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 Courts are directed to proceed in accordance with law
and pass appropriate consequential orders on the applications filed under
Section 321 of the 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 16th of April, 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
Chandra
