Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48005 (CHH)

DILIP KESHARWANI v. SATYAPRAKASH SHUKLA

CRMP/3427/2025 · 2025-11-13

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:55607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3427 of 2025 Dilip Kesharwani S/o Shyam Kesharwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Nagar Panchayat, Ujjain Boot House Lormi, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Satyaprakash Shukla S/o Tilak Prasad Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 04 Lormi, Tahsil And P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : None. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.11.2025 1 None appears for the petitioner on repeated calls. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita with the following prayers :- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Cr. Misc. Petition and to call the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Hon'ble Court of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 550/2024 and further may be pleased to pass proper order after perusal of necessary documents of the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 record and hearing to the applicant /petitioner and to allow the prayed clause sought by the applicant /petitioner in his Criminal revision after final hearing, in the interest. of justice.” 3 From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the instant petition, it transpires that the prayer is defective one which goes to show that the prayer drafted by learned counsel for the petitioner is in a very casual manner. It is also pointed out that the instant petition suffers from various defaults as in affidavit para No. 2 and 3 content not properly mentioned. 4 In view of the above consideration, the instant petition is dismissed on this ground alone, and if the petitioner prefers another CRMP with the similar prayer the same shall be accepted by the registry subject subject to depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost by the applicant in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be transmitted to the Government Home for Mentally Underdeveloped Children, Mana Camp, Raipur, as he has casually drafted the prayer and affidavit. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar