Allowed¶20

U. K. Pandey v. Surendra Jain

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026CRMP/3869/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U. K. Pandey v. Surendra Jain; CRMP No. 3869 of 2025; 2026:CGHC:610; NAFR; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; decided 06.01.2026; extension of time; further 15 days from 06.01.2026; 30-day period granted vide order dated 27.10.2025 in ACQA No.461 of 2019; appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC before Sessions Judge; order of discharge dated 11.08.2000; Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg; Criminal Case No.187/1998; delay due to illness in petitioner's family; counsel Shayon Kar; respondent unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Further period of 15 days from 06.01.2026 granted to file appeal before the concerned Sessions Court challenging the order of discharge dated 11.08.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.187/1998. ¶20

U. K. Pandey Vs Surendra Jain — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

RAVISHANKARMANDAVI Digitallysigned byRAVISHANKARMANDAVIDate:2026.01.0617:39:50+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:610

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 3869 of 2025

¶7

1 - U. K. Pandey S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Police Station- Jamul, Tahsil And District- Durg, Revenue And Civil District- Durg (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Surendra Jain S/o Shri Sonpal Jain Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Shop No. 307, Zonal Karket, Sector- 10, Bhilai, Tahsil And DistrictDurg, Revenue And Civil District- Durg (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate. For Respondent : None

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order on Board

06/01/2026

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ACQA No.461 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner challenging order of discharge dated 11.08.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg

¶17

¶18

in Criminal Case No.187/1998. That appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner/appellant taking liberty to file appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC before the concerned Sessions Judge. The aforesaid prayer was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025, in which 30 days was granted to the petitioner/appellant to file appeal, but because of illness in the family member of the petitioner/appellant, he could not file appeal within the specified period, therefore, he prayed that the period to file appeal pursuant to order dated 27.10.2025 passed by this Court in ACQA No.461 of 2019 be extended for further period of 15 days from today.

¶19

3. On due consideration and for the reasons stated by the counsel for the petitioner/appellant, period of 30 days granted vide order dated 27.10.2025 passed by this Court in ACQA No.461 of 2019 is extended and the petitioner/ appellant is granted further period of 15 days from today i.e. 06.01.2026 to file appeal before the concerned Sessions Court challenging the order of discharge dated 11.08.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.187/1998.

¶20

4. Accordingly, this CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶21

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶22

Ravi Mandavi

U. K. Pandey v. Surendra Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. K. Pandey v. Surendra Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Dahire Vs Smt. Prerna Aahire

M/S Kesharwani Enterprises Vs Union of India

Vijay Jamnik Vs Rajesh Indewar

M/S Vinod Kumar Jain, a Partnership Firm Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Mohan Marketing Vs Shanker Lal Wadhwani

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh