Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2024 DAILYLAW 731 (CHH)

SMT. RADHABAI @ OMESHWARI BANJARE v. LAKHANLAL BANJARE

CRMP/2762/2024 · 2026-03-18

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2762 of 2024 1 - Smt. Radhabai @ Omeshwari Banjare W/o Lakhanlal Banjare Aged About 45 Years Occupation Housewife Resident Of Village Chharra At Present Resident Of Village Reda, Tahsil Sarangarh District - Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Revisioners ) 2 - Minor Nikhil Banjare S/o Lakhan Lal Banjare Aged About 12 Years Minor Applicant No. 3 Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Radhabi @ Omeshwari Banjare Resident Of Village Chharra At Present Resident Of Village Reda Tahsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lakhanlal Banjare S/o Late Shersingh Banjare Aged About 48 Years Caste Satnami Occupation Cultivator And Servant Of S.C.C. L Resident Of Village Chharra P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ( Non - Applicant ) 2 - Smt. Preeti Banjare W/o Paritosh Mahesh Aged About 23 Years Daughter Of Lakhan Lal Banjare Occupation Housewife Resident Of Village Reda Tahsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Revisioner No. 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.20 17:40:05 +0530 2 Order On Board 19/03/2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG) arising out of order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the JMFC, Sarangarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.10/2015. 2. On the previous date of hearing i.e. 15.10.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners which shows that they are not interested in pursuing the petition any further. 4. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the present CRMP stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai