Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23237 (CHH)

INDERPAL SINGH BHATIA v. SMT. SARITA DEVI JAGATRAMKA

WPCR/370/2019 · 2025-02-12

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7478-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 370 of 2019 1 - Inderpal Singh Bhatia S/o Late Harbans Singh Bhatia Aged About 59 Years R/o Jagatpur, Dhimrapur, Road, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Poonam Chand Agrawal S/o Lalchand Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Ramdas Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Frieds Colony, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Suresh Sharma S/o Late Krishna Sharma Aged About 60 Years R/o Lal Tanki Raod, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Devi Jagatramka W/o Suresh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 57 Years R/o Gandhi Putla Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. P. Sharma, along with Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. B. P. Sharma, along with Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "a. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing entire criminal case filed and pending before the court below against the petitioners being violative of the petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights granted under the Constitution of India and amounts to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law. b. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue protecting liberty of the petitioners, being a victim themselves and not the perpetrator as tried to be alleged by the complainant, from further criminal prosecution and / or further trial. c. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue to the court below to permit the petitioners to participate in the criminal proceedings in question as an accused although the petitioners are a victim, after protecting their liberty by an appropriate order. d. Cost of the proceedings. 3 e. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court." 3. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of the District Court but it appears that the proposals were sent by both the parties and they were directed to go through the same and had to appear on 06.02.2025 but the respondent No.1 did not appear whereas petitioners were present, hence, the mediation could not materialised. We have given ample opportunity to the parties to settle the matter amicably through mediation process but it appears that they are not interested. Hence, with the consent of the parties we are hearing the matter on merits today itself. 4. At the time of hearing, this Court has observed that the petitioner has filed the present petition without appropriate prayer which is defective one, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition with such a vague one and proceedings have been sought to be quashed but from the prayer it is apparent that no details of the case which is sought to be quashed and for what offences to which learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh with proper prayer. 5. Learned State counsel has no objection. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to file fresh, if so advised with proper prayer and particulars. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.02.14 14:53:28 +0530