Appeals against a Single Judge's common order quashing criminal proceedings initiated on the appellant's allegations. The Division Bench held the writ petitions sought to avoid criminal investigation, so no intra-court appeal lay, and dismissed the appeals while preserving the appellant's right to seek other relief in law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 576 of 2015
Versus
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
2
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 584 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
3
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 585 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 596 Of 2015
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
4
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
5
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 608 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
10.Divya Mishra, Presently Personal Assistant To Shri Brij Mohan Agrawal, Minister, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)...........................( Respondent No. 10)
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
6
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 577 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
7
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
8
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 589 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
9
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 594 Of 2015
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
10
Talapara Jarhabhata Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).................... ( Petitioner No. 2)
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
11
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 579 Of 2015
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
12
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
13
Talapara Jarhabhata Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)........................... ( Respondent No.26)
---- Respondents
And Writ Appeal No. 588 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
14
Ganga Nagar, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)........................... ( Respondent No. 14)
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 586 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
15
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
16
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 593 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 581 Of 2015
---- Appellant
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
17
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
18
---- Respondents
And
Writ Appeal No. 587 Of 2015
Vs
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
19
---- Respondents
| For the respective Appellants | : Shri Somnath Verma and Shri Anil Mourya, Advocates |
|---|---|
| For Respondent/State | : Shri RK Gupta, Deputy Advocate General |
| For the respective Respondents | : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Shri Gagan Tiwari, Shri Mayank Chandrakar and Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocates |
Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta
Judgment on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 17.08.2017
WA-576 of 2015 & other appeals
20
led to further proceeding in the form of investigation and/or registration of FIR. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Kishan Fauji Vs State of Haryana and others 2017 (5) SCC 533, particularly the principles emanating out of paragraph 61 and 62 of that judgment as reported in SCC, we cannot but hold that the effort of the Writ Petitioners before the learned Single Judge was to avoid a criminal investigation and the result of the final order of the Writ Court is the quashment of further criminal proceedings. Obviously, therefore, an appeal does not lie against the impugned judgment to the Division Bench. Therefore, these appeals are not maintainable.
Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge
padma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeals are maintainable before the Division Bench against the common order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of HaryanaApplied¶1
Ram Kishan Fauji Vs State of Haryana and others 2017 (5) SCC 533 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajneesh Sahu
Divya Umesh Mishra
State of Chhattisgarh
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau
Sanjay Agrawal
H. K. Sharma
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sharad Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
