Disposed

Ajay Reddy v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2011WPCR/1162/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class to proceed with the petitioner's complaint case against Respondent No. 2 expeditiously and decide it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned Magistrate to proceed with the matter and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within three months.

Ajay Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WPCriminal \fc>^ / 2011

¶2

PETITIONER

¶3

Yjay Reddy S/o Shn Parmanand Shrinivas Reddy Aged 38 years Resident of Street 36 Block 1A Sector 8, Bhilai TahsU 8s Disfarict Dui^ (CG). Presently residing at D/19, Sector -1 Devendra Nagar Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur (CG)

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Bhilainagar Distnct Durg CG

¶7

J*Ktdici^} Ma^istAte Fh-st dass, Dui«(C<S) J^V^ '^- S.' Smt Rajshree Reddy alias Soiua Presently residing at Qtr No 1A Street 36Sector -8, BhUai Distt Durg (CG)

¶8

WRIT PETITION UNDER ABTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITtmON OF INDIA FORISSUANCE OP A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER

¶9

HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶10

W.P.(Criminal) No. 1162/2011

PETITIONER AjayReddy

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and another

¶15

SB:- HOIT'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J

¶16

PRESENT?:-

¶17

Shri Saleem Kazi, Advocate,for fhe appellant.. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶18

ORAL ORDEI?

¶19

(3-3-2011)

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitiQner submits that the petitioher had filed a complaint case agEdnst the respondent No. 2 Smt. Rajshree Reddy in the month of March, 2Q07 but for some reason or the other, leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class is not recording evidence and proceeding with the matter qnd therefore, if is necessary to direct the Judicial Magistrate First Class concemed to proceed with fhe case expeditiously.

¶22

Learned Gbvernment Advocate has not opposed the above prayer.

¶23

Considering the facts and circuinstances of the case and material on record, it is directed that the coneerned Magistrate shaU proceed with the matter and decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of sbc months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶24

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

¶26

^•^ 3udS®

Ajay Reddy v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Reddy v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Dashrath Singh and Ors.

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Sushila Bai and Ors.

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Kamal Nagesh and Ors.

Sr. Divisional Manager Vs Kaljeet Singh and Another

Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs State of C.G.

G.Laxmi and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another