1 2025:CGHC:49716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1211 of 2025 1 - Nembai Sahu W/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Chimagondi, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2 - Laxmibai W/o Khemlal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Chimagondi, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kavita Bai Sahu W/o Bhikham Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Chimagondi, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The applicant have filed the present petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 05-10-2024, passed by learned Additional Judge to the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.09 18:43:39 +0530 2 Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2024, whereby the charges under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 294, 323 (four counts) and 506-B of IPC have been framed. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants were not aware of the limitation period for filing of the criminal revision and challenged the order-framing of charge, and therefore, they could not file the criminal revision before this Court challenging the order- framing of charge, which caused delay of 299 days in filing the criminal revision. He would further submit that there is no allegation against the present applicants that they have also been involved in the offence and there is no prima facie material available in the charge-sheet to frame the charges against them. He would also submit that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and their contradictory statements itself make the prosecution's case doubtful and no charges can be framed against the applicants. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the applicants may be discharged. 4. When a specific query has been asked from the learned counsel for the applicants, as to what is the status of the trial of the case after framing of charge, he would fairly submit that out of 19 cited witnesses, total 12 witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes 3 and has submitted that, the trial is in advance stage and 12 witnesses have been examined, there is a named FIR against the present applicants and positive allegations of involvement in the offence in question have been there. From the statement of the witnesses, the involvement of the present applicants is also there, which is sufficient for framing a charge and in such an advanced stage of trial, the charges cannot be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the copy of the FIR, which has been annexed at page No. 35 of the petition, it clearly transpires that there are allegations against the present applicants that, they are also involved in commission of the offence, for which the charge-sheet has been filed against them also, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 323, 506-B of IPC. From the statement of the witnesses, Smt. Bajarhin Bai Sahu, Smt. Jageshwari Sahu, Anant Ram Sahu, Jalesh Sahu, Vivek Sahu, Mansingh Sahu, Rupesh Sahu, Lakhanlal Sahu, the present applicants have been named as accused, who involved in commission of the offence. Therefore, there is, prima facie sufficient material to frame charges against them. This Court do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of framing of charges, that too, the same has been challenged after such a long delay, particularly when 12 witnesses have already been examined, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants do not make out any case to condone the delay in filing the criminal revision as well as to discharge them from the alleged offences, as there are sufficient material to 4 frame charge against them. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved