Dismissed¶¶42

Suresh Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2026CRMP/388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, common order dated 08/01/2026 (neutral citation 2026:CGHC:1147-DB, NAFR) dismissing CRMP No. 388 of 2022 and CRR No. 402 of 2022 arising out of Session Trial No. 26/2021; quashment of FIR No. 20/2021 (Police Station Hasaud/Hassaud, District Janjgir-Champa) and of charge-framing order dated 06.12.2021 refused as trial at advanced stage with seven prosecution witnesses examined; offences under Sections 387, 120-B read with 34, and 302 read with 115 IPC; interim order in CRR No. 402 of 2022 vacated; Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law; coram Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge (author).

What did the court decide?

In CRMP No. 388 of 2022, the Court declined to interfere because the trial was at an advanced stage. ¶¶37

Suresh Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition in CRMP No. 388 of 2022, confined to quashment of FIR No. 20/2021, should be entertained when the charge-framing order of 06.12.2021 went unchallenged and seven prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, had already been examined. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

In CRMP No. 388 of 2022, the Court declined to interfere because the trial was at an advanced stage.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law (direction following dismissal of the petitions).

¶¶39

Key takeaways

In CRR No. 402 of 2022 likewise, the Court declined to interfere since the trial had reached an advanced stage, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.ratio¶¶41
Both CRMP No. 388 of 2022 and CRR No. 402 of 2022 stand dismissed.ratio¶¶42
The interim order passed in CRR No. 402 of 2022 stands vacated.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashment petitions refused at advanced trial stage — CRMP No. 388 of 2022 (nine petitioners of Bhatmahul, P.S. Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, seeking quashment of FIR No. 20/2021) and CRR No. 402 of 2022 (Randhir Kashyap seeking quashment of the Trial Court's charge-framing order dated 06.12.2021 in Session Trial No. 26/2021, the charges framed thereunder (Annexure A/1), and FIR No. 20/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 387, 120-B read with 34, and 302 read with 115, Indian Penal Code) — chargesheet already filed, charges framed on 06.12.2021, framing order not challenged until filing of the petition on 02.03.2022, and seven prosecution witnesses including the complainant already examined — Court declined to interfere at so advanced a stage, dismissed both petitions, directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, and vacated the interim order passed in CRR No. 402 of 2022. Common order by Arvind Kumar Verma, J; bench Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

1 / 4

2026:CGHC:1147-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 388 of 2022

¶6

Suresh Chandra S/o Panchram Chandra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Smt. Rajkumari Chandra W/o Shri Suresh Chandra, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Smt. Sushila Yadav W/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Shyamlal Chandra S/o Shri Jairam Chandra, Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Shobit Chandra S/o Shri Jairam Chandra, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Govind Chandra, S/o Shri Jatiram Chandra, Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Keshav Chandra S/o Sitaram Chandra, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Bharat Ram Chandra S/o Javahir Chandra, Aged About 41 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

Kaushal Chandra S/o Munshiram Chandra, Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

versus

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Acting Through OfÏcer-In-Charge Police Station Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Vijay Kumar Chandra S/o Bhagwan Lal Chandra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhatmahul, P.S. Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Randhir Kashyap S/o Lakhanlal Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years R/o Vilage Malda, Police Station Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶21

Sammay Lal Jaiswal S/o Radheshyam Jaiswal, Aged About 57 Years R/o Bhatmahul, Police Station Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Respondent(s)

¶23

CRR No. 402 of 2022

¶24

Randhir Kashyap S/o Lakhan Lal, Aged About 27 Years R/o Malda, Police Station - Hassaud, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶25

--- Petitioner(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Hassaud, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶28

--- Respondent(s)

¶29

In CRMP 388/2022
For Petitioner	: Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Adv
For State/Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advo-

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

For Respondent No. 4.	cate Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advo- cate
In CRR 402/2022 For Petitioner For State	: : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advo- cate Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

¶32

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

Per, Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 08/01/2026

¶35

Since the both these petitions i.e. CRMP No. 388 of 2022 and CRR No 402 of 2022 filed by the petitioners arise out of same Session Trial No. 26/2021 they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶36

In CRMP No. 388 of 2022, at the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the prayer made in the present petition is confined only to quashment of FIR No. 20/2021. However, from the pleadings themselves, it is apparent that the chargesheet has already been filed against the petitioners and charges were framed by the Trial Court on 06.12.2021. The said order framing charges has not been challenged, despite the present petition having been filed on 02.03.2022 on behalf of the petitioners through their counsel. It was further pointed out that as many as seven prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined.

¶37

In view of the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this juncture. Accordingly, the present CRMP No. 388/2022 stands dismissed , with direction to the

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.1

¶40

CRR No. 402 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned order and the charges framed thereunder (Annexure A/1), as well as quashment of FIR No. 20/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 120-B read with 34, and 302 read with 115 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶41

From the pleadings on record, it transpires that although the impugned order has been challenged, the trial is already in progress and as many as seven prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have been examined. Since the trial has reached an advanced stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this juncture. The Trial Court is, therefore, directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶42