Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11035 (CHH)

RAJEEV KUMAR SARAF v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/377/2021 · 2025-02-14

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7913-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 377 of 2021 Rajeev Kumar Saraf S/o Pratapchand Saraf, Aged About 42 Years R/o Station Road, Champa, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/02/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR dated 03.11.2020 bearing Crime No. 286/2020 at Police Station, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential criminal proceedings related to the said FIR being Criminal 2 Case No. 317/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appeared and submitted that the matter would be argued by Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel, through video conferencing and as such, the matter was passed over. 3. When the matter was taken up in the second round after sometime, Mr. Mishra submits that Mr. Prashant Kumar could not be connected through Video Conferencing because of some technical glitch on his part. 4. Be that as it may, since the arguing counsel himself does not seem to be serious in arguing the matter and has failed to appear through video conferencing, and further since the complainant has not been arrayed as party-respondent, we are not inclined to keep this matter pending and as such, the same is dismissed reserving liberty to file a file a better constituted petition. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.17 12:57:29 +0530