1 2025:CGHC:12633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 7 of 2016  Smt. Chetna Jain W/o Lt. Manoj Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. - City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Nidhi @ Presha Jain W/o Manish Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o New Sarafa Road Balaghat, P.S. And Tah. - Balaghat, Civil And Revenue District Balaghat, M.P. Wrongly Mentioned Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order. , District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh 3. Ku. Namrata D/o Lalit Chouradiya Aged About 28 Years R/o New Sarafa Road Balaghat, P.S. And Tah. - Balaghat, Civil And Revenue District Balaghat, M.P. Wrongly Mentioned Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order. , District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh 4. Smt. Nirmala W/o Lalit Chouradiya Aged About 60 Years R/o New Sarafa Road Balaghat, P.S. And Tah. - Balaghat, Civil And Revenue District Balaghat, M.P. Wrongly Mentioned Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order. , District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh 5. Lalit Chouradiya S/o Bhairudan Chouradiya Aged About 62 Years R/o New Sarafa Road Balaghat, P.S. And Tah. - Balaghat, Civil And Revenue District Balaghat, M.P. Wrongly Mentioned Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order. , District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh 6. Prashant S/o Lalit Chouradiya Aged About 33 Years R/o New Sarafa Road Balaghat, P.S. And Tah. - Balaghat, Civil And Revenue District Balaghat, M.P. Wrongly Mentioned Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order. , District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.18 10:17:52 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate holing the brief of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17. 03.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 372 of the CrPC by the Appellant/complainant being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 03.11.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No. 76/2015, whereby learned Sessions Judge had discharged respondents No. 2 to 6 from charges punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Registry has raised an objection that the respondents No. 2 to 6 have been discharged, but appellant has filed an acquittal appeal. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondents No. 2 to 6 have already been discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC; therefore, the instant appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 4. Certified copy be return after retaining its xerox copy. Sd Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge $iddhant