1 2025:CGHC:5796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 400 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o Katiyapara, Juna Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Rural Engineering Services Sarguja Circle, Ambikapur, Dis- trict-Surajpur,Chhattisgarh 4 - D.K. Soni Rti Activist/lawyer Navapara, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Bharani, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 31.01.2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondent no. 2 vide memo dated 18.04.2024 called an enquiry report conducted by the department (respondent no. 3) against the petitioner regarding the allegation as raised in the complaint case filed by the respondent no. 4. But the same has not been submitted till date. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition and may direct the respondent no. 2 to submit its enquiry report expeditiously as early as possible before the learned trial court in the ends of justice. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Para 47.3 reads as under:- 47.3. “Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritizing the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” 5. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case which reveals that it is not an exceptional case therefore, it is directed to make all endeavors to conclude the proceedings pending before the trial court as early as possible. 6. With the aforesaid direction the instant petition is disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza