1 2026:CGHC:246-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 651 of 2025 Sindhu Vaishnav D/o Vijay Vaishnav Aged About 25 Years Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.05 16:48:10 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Trial Court i.e. learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) to forthwith summon and examine the Investigating Officer in Sessions Case No. 49/2025 and conclude the trial within a time- bound manner, preferably within 3 months. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the Trial Court's order fixing for recording evidence of unrelated to the petitioner's trial, as it is illegal and contrary to this Hon'ble Court's directive dated 03.12.2024. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to segregate proceedings against the absconding co-accused to avoid further delay in the petitioner's trial. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. From perusal of the pleadings as well as the prayers made in the present writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner has essentially sought directions relating to the manner of conduct of a criminal trial pending before the competent Sessions Court. The reliefs claimed pertain to summoning and examination of witnesses, fixation of dates, segregation of proceedings qua an absconding co-accused, and other interlocutory and procedural aspects arising during the course of trial. Such grievances are squarely 3 relatable to interim or procedural orders passed by the Trial Court, for which the petitioner has adequate, efficacious and statutorily prescribed remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styled as a WPCR, is not maintainable. 4. It is well settled that in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with pending criminal trials or issue directions governing the day-to-day conduct of proceedings before the Trial Court, unless exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction, gross abuse of process, or manifest failure of justice are demonstrated. In the absence of any such extraordinary situation, entertaining the present petition would result in unwarranted interference with the judicial discretion vested in the Trial Court and would be contrary to the settled principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction in criminal matters. 5. This Court is also mindful of the settled principle that the supervisory and corrective jurisdiction vested in the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in criminal matters where the trial is already underway. Interference at an interlocutory stage, without availing the remedies provided under the criminal law framework, may not only derail the trial process but also defeat the legislative intent of ensuring 4 expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The petitioner, therefore, is required to pursue the remedies available in law before the appropriate forum rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, at this stage, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy available in accordance with law before the appropriate Bench/forum. 7. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, raises no objection to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, leaving all questions open to be agitated before the appropriate Bench/forum in accordance with law. 9. The certified copy of the final report dated 17.10.2024, along with all annexures, shall be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu