Allowed¶8

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gandhulal Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC14 Oct 2025CRMP/998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 516 days in filing Cr.M.P.; leave to appeal under Section 419(3) BNSS against acquittal; acquittal dated 03.07.2023 by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba in Sessions Trial No. 19/2023; charges under Sections 506 Part-II and 308 IPC; reliance on State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 para 11; CRMP No. 998 of 2025; registered as Acquittal Appeal; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; order dated 15/10/2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 516 days in filing the Cr.M.P. condoned (I.A. No.01 allowed); leave to appeal granted; CRMP to be registered as an Acquittal Appeal and listed for admission in the week commencing 3rd November, 2025. ¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gandhulal Dewangan — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by BHOLA BHOLANATH NATH KHATAI KHATAI Date:2025.10.16 13:46:37 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:51427

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 998 of 2025

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Rampur Police Station Kotwali District Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

Gandhulal Dewangan S/o Late Lobhan Singh Dewangan Aged About 75 Years R/o M. P. Nagar Quarter No. MIG 1/136 Police Chowki Rampur Police Station City Kotwali Korba, District - Korba (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

15/10/2025

¶16

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/25, for condonation of delay occurred in filing the Cr.M.P.

¶17

2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. ChandraMani and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 132 in para 11, held that:-

¶18

“It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of

¶19

¶20

delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-marking, file pushing and passing on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decision are taken by the officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay-intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit.”

¶21

3. In light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the reasons mentioned in the application for the delay, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 516 days in filing the instant Cr.M.P. is condoned.

¶22

4. Also heard on admission.

¶23

5. Admit.

¶24

6. The application under Section 419(3) of BNSS has been filed seeking for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Korba (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 19/2023 whereby

¶25

¶26

respondent Gandhulal Dewangan has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 506 Part-II, 308 of IPC.

¶27

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that arguable points have been raised by the petitioner/State for grant of leave to appeal.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. Leave as prayed for is granted.

¶29

9. Let this CRMP now be registered as an Acquittal Appeal.

¶30

10. Let the acquittal appeal be listed for admission in the week commencing 3^rd November, 2025.

¶31

Sd/- ( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶32

Khatai

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gandhulal Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gandhulal Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik Ram Patel Vs Radheshyam Patel

Goverdhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rupendra Behra

Suresh Kumar Kosti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Surendra Patel

Prem Chandrakar Vs Ramdayal Verma