Dismissed

Satya Narayan Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2021WPCR/1030/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw a writ petition challenging an order taking cognizance in a criminal case under Sections 465 and 469 IPC, as the original complaint had been dismissed by the trial Magistrate. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive as and when cause of action arises.

Satya Narayan Sahu and Ors. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (Cr.) No.1030 of 2011

¶5

1. Satya Narayan Sahu aged about 41 years, R/o Shri Sita Ram Sahu, Sub Inspector (Excise), Kabirdham, Tah. & Distt. Kabirdham (CG)

¶6

2. Durga Singh Thakur, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Bali Ram Singh Thakur, Assistant District Excise Officer Durg (CG) Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG)

¶7

3. Nand Kumar Parganiha, aged about 59 years, S/o Shri Munshi Ram Parganiha, Head Constable (Excise) Durg Interior North Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG)

¶8

---Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of C.G. Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG)

¶11

2. Excise Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Raipur (CG)

¶12

3. Chairman, State Public Service Commission of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG)

¶13

4. Baljeet Singh Bhatiya, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Shri Trilok Singh Bhatiya, R/o Amapara Balod, P.S. Balod, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (CG)

¶14

 ---Respondents

¶15

`For Petitioners`	`:` `Mr.V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate`
`For Respondents No.1&2`	`:` `Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.`
`For Respondent No.4`	`:` `Mr.B.P.Sharma, Advocate`

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

07/01/2021

¶19

At the outset, Mr.V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners

¶20

¶21

have challenged the order taking cognizance in
Criminal Complaint Case No.641/2010 (renumbered as
174/2013) by which cognizance for offences under
Sections 465 and 469 read with Section 34 of the IPC
has been taken, original complaint case has now been
dismissed by the trial Magistrate on 19.9.2017 and
no steps have been taken for restoration of that
complaint. In that view of the matter, the
petitioners seek permission of this Court to
withdraw this writ petition with liberty to revive
as and when cause of action arises, which is opposed
by learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶22

Since the original complaint case has already been dismissed and the petitioners are seeking withdrawal of this writ petition, prayer is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive as and when cause of action arises.

¶23

 Sd/-

¶24

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
 JUDGE

¶25

B/-

Satya Narayan Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan Sahu and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mo. Junaid Memon, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaitibai and Others Vs Ramkali and Others

Tikaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Prasad Trivedi and Ors. Vs Mohan

Mohanlal Soni Vs Poshan Singh and Ors.

Smt. Bhagwantin Bai and Another Vs Bharosa and Another