Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58137 (CHH)

DINESH KUMAR CHANDRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1751/2022 · 2025-10-30

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53279-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1749 of 2022 Narayan Prasad Kashyap S/o Jaitram Kashyap Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Birra, Ward No. - 16, Harijanpara Police Station - Birra, Tehsil - Bamnidih, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Jaijaipur, District Shakti ,Chhattisgarh 2 - Premlal Koshley S/o Sitaram Koshley Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sendri, Police Station Jaijaipur, District - Shakti Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 1751 of 2022 Dinesh Kumar Chandra S/o Dev Lal Chandra Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Birra, P. S. Birra, Tehsil Bamnidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Premlal Koshley S/o Sitaram Koshley Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sendri, P. S. Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate For State / Respondent No.1: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 31 . 10 .202 5 1. Since both the above captioned petitions arise out of same FIR, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is not responding whereas learned State counsel has submitted that the matter has become infructuous as the trial of the petitioner has been entered into an acquittal. 4. Accordingly, the both the petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra