1 2026:CGHC:9145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 7 of 2025 Uttam Pandey S/o Late Bhagawat Prasad Pandey Aged About 68 Years (Now Aged About 70 Years) R/o Communication Chamber No. 01, High Court Parisar, Bodari Bilaspur, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned True Address As Mentioned In Memo Of Appeal Is As- Address For Communication, Chamber No. 101 High Court Campus-Bodari Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Chakarbhatha, Dist- Bilaspur, C.G. 2. Rajneesh Singh Baghel S/o Shri Amarjeet Singh Baghel Aged About 32 Years Plot No.22, Shanti Nagar, Police Civil Line Dist- Bilaspur, C.G. (Accused) 3. Ramakant Pandey S/o Gajadhar Prasad Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur, C.G. (Accused) 4. Anil Maurya S/o Firtu Ram Maurya Aged About 42 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda Dist- Bilaspur, C.G. (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajneesh Singh Baghel, through Video Conferencing with Miss. Chetna Sharma, For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ravish Verma, with Mr. Ramakant Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate with Mr. Anil Maura, Advocate SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.02.20 16:03:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 20/02/2026 1. This Criminal Revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality of order dated 19.11.2024 passed by 10th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 120 fo 2023 by which the first Appellate Court has affirmed the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrte First Class Bilha, Bilapsur Criminal Case No. 166 of 2014. 2. From the records particularly statement of complainant wherein certain question from paragraph 13 to 18 have been put which hurt him and they are at all not relevant and appears to be vague for deciding the lis between the parties, therefore, the same may not be treated as part of record for any purose. 3. During pendecy of the present Criminal Revision the parties have agreed to settle their grievances, as the respondent No. 2 to 4 have tendered their apology and in view of the apology, the appellant-in-person does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit. Accordingly, the Criminal revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh