Dismissed

Shivlal Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026CRMP/2322/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 seeking direction for speedy disposal. Court found delay was due to counsel seeking time for witness examination, not judicial inaction, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was granted; the petition was dismissed.

Shivlal Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010342752026

2026:CGHC:40634

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 2322 of 2026

¶7

Shivlal Netam S/o Jaysingh, Aged About 30 Years Caste- Gond, R/o VillageBarda Police Station- Urandabeda, Tahsil-Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police StationUrandabeda, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶11

ALFIZA BAIG

¶12

2 - Mansingh Dugga S/o Jaggu Dugga Aged About 30 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶13

Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.09.17 18:04:41 +0530

¶14

3 - Balsai Marapi S/o Milan Marapi Aged About 30 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶15

4 - Mansai Dugga S/o Jaggu Dugga Aged About 28 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶16

5 - Agnu Ram Marrapi S/o Late Sakkhu Marrapi Aged About 50 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶17

6 - Ramsingh Marrapi S/o Sanau Marrapi Aged About 30 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶18

¶19

7 - Naklesh Marapi S/o Basen Marapi Aged About 24 Years R/o Kongud, Police Station-Dhanora, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.)

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner	: Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶23

ORDER ON BOARD

¶24

17.09.2026

¶25

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking relief that “this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) for deciding the complaint as well as the application expeditiously, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has moved an application under Section 175 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( “in short BNSS, 2023” ) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, however, appropriate order(s) have not been passed and therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the concerned Magistrate for deciding the complaint made by him as also the application filed under Section 175 of BNSS, 2023, expeditiously.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that from the documents enclosed along with this petition reveals that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, C.G., has proceeded with the application submitted by

¶28

¶29

petitioner under Section 175 of BNSS, 2023, however, the counsel representing the petitioner has taken time for the preliminary examination of the witnesses.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶31

Perusal of Annexure P-2 would show that on the complaint made by petitioner with regard to the incident happened on 26.08.2025, concerned Police have submitted an Istigasha before the competent authority. Vide letter dated 26.09.2025 Station House Officer, Urandabeda, District- Kondagaon, C.G. had intimated the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kondagaon, C.G. about the proceedings initiated and submission of Ishtigasha before the competent authority. Petitioner has enclosed a copy of complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, C.G. as Annexure A-3 and have also enclosed an application under Section 175 of BNSS, 2023. Order sheets vide Annexure P-4 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kondagaon, C.G. would show that after receiving the application and complaint, Court has called for report and after the receipt of the report, case was fixed for arguments on 21.11.2025. However on 21.11.2025 as also on 08.12.2025 counsel representing petitioner sought time for agrument. Thereafter on 02.01.2026 the case was fixed for recording of preliminary statement of witnesses of the complainant on 03.03.2026. On that day Shivlal, Raju and Ramsu were present and they were examined however, again time was taken for examination of the left over witnesses by the counsel for petitioner. Similarly on 13.04.2026, 23.05.2026 as also on 03.07.2026 counsel representing

¶32

¶33

complainant sought time for recording of preliminary statement of the left over witnesses.

¶34

From the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is appearing that after receipt of the application filed under Section 175 of BNSS, 2023, and complaint application, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, C.G. have proceeded and on the other hand, from time to time learned counsel representing complainant before the learned Magistrate has taken time, therefore, it could not be said that there is delay in proceedings on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, C.G.

¶35

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶36

Certified copy as per rules.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

alfiza

Shivlal Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivlal Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

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