Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57152 (CHH)

NAND KUMAR KHUNTE v. UTTAARA KHUNTE

CRR/565/2021 · 2025-08-20

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:42510 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2021 1 - Nand Kumar Khunte S/o. Shri Lachhram Khunte Aged About 33 Years Constable No. 349, R/o. Second Battalian, Chhattisgarh Force Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamla Khunte W/o. Shri Lachhram Khunte Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Bhalwahi Lagra, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shekhar Khunte S/o. Shri Lachhram Khunte Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village Bhalwahi Lagra, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). 4 - Sarojni Khunte W/o. Shri Shekhar Khunte Aged About 26 Years R/o. Village Bhalwahi Lagra, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). 5 - Purnima Khunte D/o. Shri Lachhram Khunte Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village Bhalwahi Lagra, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). 6 - Lachhram Khunte S/o. Late Mohit Ram Khunte Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Bhalwahi Lagra, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) --- Petitioners versus Uttaara Khunte W/o. Shri Nand Kumar Khunte Aged About 34 Years R/o. Chhota Durga Gali, Deepupara, Bilaspur P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 21/08/2025 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.23 11:55:59 +0530 2 This is a revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 17.08.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.12/ 2020 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the application filed by the respondent u/s 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been allowed. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners when the matter is called out even in second round. Since no representation is made on behalf of the petitioners despite repeated call, this Court has no other way except to dismiss the revision for want of prosecution. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao