Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33894 (CHH)

RAMESH KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1303/2022 · 2026-08-23

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010252572022 2026:CGHC:37808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1303 of 2022 1 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Jawahar Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years (Sarpanch), R/o Village Uni, Post Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajendra Singh Mouhar S/o Late Shri Kaushal Singh Aged About 58 Years (Upsarpanch), R/o Village Uni. Post Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Puniram Sahu Aged About 38 Years (Sachiv), R/o Village Kouvatal, Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Akhileshwar Thakur S/o Sammar Singh Aged About 30 Years (Rozgar Sahayak), R/o Village Uni, Post Khamhariya, Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : None appears on repeated calls For Respondent /State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.08.2026 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition on the repeated calls. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. Heard Mr. Jirendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 3. Learned State counsel submits that though the present petition has been filed the petitioners for quashment of the impugned FIR, but, during pendency of the present petition charge-sheet has already been filed and case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 23.10.2026. 4. There appears to be no interim order passed in the present case and though the present petition has been filed the petitioners for quashment of the impugned FIR, but, during pendency of the present petition charge-sheet has already been filed and case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 23.10.2026 and further that there is no representation of behalf of the petitioners to press this petition on repeated calls, thus, it is apparent that petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on this ground alone. 6. Let a copy of the this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra