Dismissed

Shiv Balak Ram Yadav v. Deleted a.N.Upadhayaya

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2023CONT/111/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a previous order. The court noted that counsel admitted the respondents furnished the required report under Section 155 Cr.P.C., accepting that compliance was achieved. Consequently, the rule was discharged and proceedings dropped.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; instant contempt proceeding dropped.

Shiv Balak Ram Yadav Vs Deleted a.N.Upadhayaya — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CONT No. 111 of 2017

¶4

Shiv Balak Ram Yadav S/o Shri Ramdulare Yadav, Aged About 34 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village- Indarpur, P.S. And TehsilOdagi, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, CG

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Deleted A.N. Upadhayaya

¶8

Deleted Arun Dev Gautam

¶9

R.P.Sai, Posted as Superintendent of Police Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District Surjapur, CG

¶10

Azharuddin Khan, Posted as Station House Officer Odagi, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur, CG

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, Adv. For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rahul Jha, Adv. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice N aresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board

¶14

1-12-2023

¶15

Alleging non-compliance of order dated 26-8-2016 passed by this Court in WP(Cr) No. 9/2016, the petitioner has filed present contempt petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that pursuant to complaint made by the petitioner, written intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. (part of Annexure R-2/1) was given to him that said offence alleged by him is not found to be cognizable offence. Thus,

¶17

¶18

respondent No. 4 has complied with the direction given by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. He has categorically stated that on being complaint made by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 has taken action and has given Adam Dastan Raji report under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, direction given by this Hon’ble Court has been complied with.

¶20

Since, as per submission of learned counsel for both the parties, particularly the admission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction issued by this Court has been complied with, hence nothing remains in this petition.

¶21

In view of above, the instant contempt petition is disposed of at motion stage. The rule issued to respondents is discharged and instant contempt proceeding is dropped.

¶22

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶23

Pathak/-

Shiv Balak Ram Yadav v. Deleted a.N.Upadhayaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Balak Ram Yadav v. Deleted a.N.Upadhayaya

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

Ruppi Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs Girish Tikariha

Deep Ram Sao Vs Shri Abhay Kumar Jaisawal

Shrawan Sonjhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khilawan Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagat Singh Gurudutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

In Referance of State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sandeep Jain