Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2022 DAILYLAW 643 (CHH)

DINESH CHANDRA KHARE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1829/2022 · 2026-04-20

Shri Radhakishan Agrawal

Transfer Petitionbody2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1246 of 2022 Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation Of India New Delhi, Through Authorized Representative Shri Dineshchandra Khare S/o Virendra Prasad Khare, A/a 65 Years, R/o Maharshi Vedic World Administration, Mig-S. 22/phase-2, Hirapur Road, Kabir Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner/Complainant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Baloda- Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - G.R. Chandramohan S/o Lte N.G. Pillai, Aged About 65 Years R/o Flat No, 124, Ayappa Nagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Note- Current Age Of The Accused Is Mentioned Herien) --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 1829 of 2022 1 - Dinesh Chandra Khare S/o Virendra Prasad Khare, Aged About 53 Years Authorized Member Of S.R.M. Foundation, A-14, Mathura Road, New Delhi. R/o Hirapur Road, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, P.S., Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O.P.S. Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - G. R. Ramchandramohan, S/o Late Shri N. G. Pille, Aged About 66 Years R/o Flat No. 124, Ayappa Nagar, Supela, Post Office And P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For respective petitioners : None Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.04.22 10:05:10 +0530 2 For Respondent 1/State : Smt. Sunita Manikpuri, Government Advocate in both the matters. For Respondent 2 : Shri Qamarul Aziz, Advocate in both the matters. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. When the present matters are called repeatedly, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respective petitioners. 2. In the above circumstance and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respective petitioners, no other is option is left out to this Court but to dismiss these petitions for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, both the instant petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani