Suraj Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suraj Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the petition granted; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to counsel for the applicants after retaining a photocopy of the same.

Issue for consideration

Challenge raised by the applicants, via this petition under Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023, to the order dated 17.11.2025 of the 11th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur framing charge against them under Section 306/34 of the IPC in Sessions Case No. 188/2025. (Note: this issue was not adjudicated; the petition was withdrawn at the outset.)

Ratio / Principle

Prayer of counsel for the applicants to withdraw the petition was allowed; the revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, and the Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to counsel for the applicants after retaining a photocopy of the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR No. 176 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 04/02/2026 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. Applicants Suraj Nirmalkar and Mohan Nirmalkar preferred this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned 11th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 188/2025, whereby the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC was framed against them (the second applicant's name having been wrongly mentioned as Kamlesh Nirmalkar in the final report under Section 193 of BNSS 2023). At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that she wanted to withdraw the petition and prayed for return of the certified copy of the impugned order; learned counsel for the State had no objection. The Court allowed the prayer, dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn, and directed the Registry to return the certified copy of the impugned order to counsel for the applicants after retaining a photocopy. The challenge to the charge-framing order was not adjudicated on merits.

1

2026:CGHC:6188

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 176 of 2026

1 - Suraj Nirmalkar S/o Shri Kamlesh Nirmalkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Mohan Nirmalkar S/o Shri Santosh Nirmalkar Aged About 29 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Kamlesh Nirmalkar In Final Report Prepare Under Section 193 Of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 And The Order Dated 14.08.2025 Passed In Session Case No. 188/2025), R/o Bazaar Mohalla Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Applicants

versus

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

2 - Pardeshi Kaushik S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Aawas Para Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

3 - Smt. Sulochana Bai W/o Shri Pardeshi Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Aawas Para Dagori, Police Station - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Applicants : Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, Adv. For State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L.

HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.04 16:54:41 +0530

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

2

Order on Board

04/ 02/ 2026

The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned 11^th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 188/2025, whereby the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicants/accused persons.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that she wants to withdraw this petition. She also prays to return the certified copy of the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this proposition put forth by the counsel for the applicants.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the counsel for the applicants, after retaining a photocopy of the same.

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

H.L. Sahu