Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37047 (CHH)

Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

ACQA/255/2017 · 2025-09-01

Shri Radhakishan Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 255 of 2017 Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit S/o Late Balram Singh Dixit, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bilaspur Hospital, Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hori Singh Daud, S/o Tulsiram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bemetara, Tahsil, Police Station and District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents ACQA No. 258 of 2017 Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit S/o Late Balram Singh Dixit, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bilaspur Hospital Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rameshwar Singh S/o Baldau Singh Thakur, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pipartarai Police Station and Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondents For Appellant : None For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 (ACQA No.255/2017) : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 (ACQA No.258/2017) Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:04:48 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. No one appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the appellant even when the cases are called in the second round. Further on the previous dates of hearing i.e. 12.06.2025, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the matters. 2. In the above circumstances, in absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash