Maninder Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the first information report (0118/2022) dated 07.12.2022, charge sheet no. 49/23 dated 23.06.2023, cognizance order dated 23.06.2023 and charges framed on 23.03.2024 under Sections 498(A) and 34 IPC, together with the entire criminal proceedings in Regular Criminal Case no. 7023/2023, should be set aside/quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On the order sheets, the learned trial Court is already endeavouring all its efforts to get the witnesses examined, for which summons and bailable warrants are being issued to the witnesses.

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial, since the learned trial Court has already been proceeding in the case.ratio¶6
To secure the presence of respondent No.2, a bailable warrant had already been issued by the learned trial Court.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRMP No. 1507 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 17-06-2026 (2026:CGHC:24243-DB; NAFR) — Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge. Petition by three family members (including Maninder Singh, husband of complainant Simran Kaur) sought quashing of FIR No. 0118/2022 dated 07.12.2022 of P.S. Mahila Thana Sector-06, Bhilai (Durg), charge sheet no. 49/23 dated 23.06.2023, cognizance order dated 23.06.2023 and charges framed on 23.03.2024 under Sections 498(A) and 34 IPC in Regular Criminal Case no. 7023/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh V/s Maninder Singh & Others), arising out of a matrimonial dispute. During hearing, counsel for the petitioners confined his submission to a direction to expedite the trial, witnesses and respondent No.2 not appearing despite summons and bailable warrants; the petitioners declined the Court's offer of referral to the Mediation Center. HELD: the learned trial Court was already endeavouring all its efforts to get the witnesses examined, issuing summons and bailable warrants, and a bailable warrant had already been issued to secure the presence of respondent No.2; the Court was therefore not inclined to direct expedition of the trial or otherwise interfere. Petition dismissed.

1

Digitally signed byMOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.19 16:56:00 +0530

NAFR

2026:CGHC:24243-DB

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1507 of 2026

1 - Maninder Kaur W/o Upendra Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Plot No. 07, Road No. 119, Kailash Nagar, Jamul, P.S. Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Name wrongly mentioned in FIR)

2 - Upendra Singh S/o Late Dilip Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Plot No. 07, Road No. 119, Kailash Nagar, Jamul, P.S. Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

3 - Maninder Singh S/o Upendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 07, Road No. 119, Kailash Nagar, Jamul, P.S. Jamul Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

... Petitioners

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO / Officer Incharge, Police Station Mahila Thana, Sector- 06, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

2 - Simran Kaur W/o Maninder Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o MIG 02, House No. 1779, World Bank Colony Housing Board, Durg Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) …. (Complainant)

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

2

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

17-06-2026

Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and setaside/quash the impugned first information report (0118/2022), charge sheet no. 49/23 dated 23.06.2023, cognizance order passed by learned JMFC, Durg (C.G.) on dated 23.06.2023 and the charges framed against the petitioners on dated 23.03.2024 for the offence u/s 498(A) and 34 of the IPC in Regular Criminal Case no. 7023/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh V/s Maninder Singh & Others) and entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to impugned first information report 0118/2022 dated 07.12.2022 for the offence punishable under section 498(A) and 34 of India Penal Code registered at P.S. Mahila Thana Sector -06 Bhilai (Durg), in the interest of justice.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would confine

3

his submission that despite issuance of summons and bailable warrants witnesses are not turning up for their examination, therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to expedite the proceeding of the case.

The matter being matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2, this Court during the course of hearing gave an option to learned counsel for the petitioners to refer the matter to the Mediation Center for amicable settlement between the parties, on which he states that the petitioners are not interested for the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that though charges have been framed, but respondent No.2 and other persons are not appearing in the case despite repeated summons issued for their appearance, hence, the trial may be expedited.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners does not show their willingness for mediation and only asked for expeditious disposal of the trial and further considering the order sheets of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court is endeavouring all its efforts to get the witnesses examined for which summons and bailable warrants are being issued to the witnesses, we are not inclined to direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial as the learned trial Court has already proceeding in the case. It is needless to say that to secure the presence of respondent No.2 bailable warrant has

4

already been issued by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and the present petition is dismissed .

Sd/Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Aadil