Mahendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

4 - Manilal Yadav S/o Late Ramsewak Yadav Aged About 54 Years Cast- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Dasaru Ram S/o Boudha Ram Aged About 58 Years Cast- Lohar R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Sukhdev Yadav S/o Jgagaru Aged About 59 Years Caste- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶16

7 - Ramraj S/o Kunwar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶17

8 - Raniyaro W/o Misal Ram Aged About 49 Years Cast- Korwa R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶18

9 - Basu Sonwani S/o Ramvikash Aged About 52 Years Cast- Dhobi R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶19

10 - Goverdhan Yadav S/o Dashrath Aged About 54 Years Cast- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶20

2

¶21

11 - Kullu Yadav S/o Muneshwar Aged About 45 Years Cast- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.) 12 - Kaleshwar Yadav S/o Dashrath Aged About 49 Years Cast- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶22

13 - Angad Yadav S/o Dashrath Yadav Aged About 47 Years Cate- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶23

14 - Rakhan Yadav S/o Dashrath Yadav Aged About 45 Years Cast- Ahir R/o Village- Harradipa Tahsil- Sanna Distt- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

(Cause-title taken	from Case Information System)
For Petitioner :	Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For State :	Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General

¶26

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶27

Order on Board

¶28

23.07.2026

¶29

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the inaction on the part of the concerned authority in not deciding the proceedings pending under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of the said proceedings. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

¶30

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the case of petitioner bearing revenue case no. 202509031300034/section 145-146/2024-

¶31

3

¶32

2025 parties name ANNEXURE P/8 within Mahendra Vs Premkumar Yadav & Others stipulated period.

¶33

10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are pending before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagicha, since 26.09.2025 and, despite lapse of considerable time, the same have not yet been decided. It is submitted that the petitioner is confining his prayer only to a direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the pending proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶35

3. Learned State counsel submits that if the proceedings are still pending before the concerned authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶36

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

5. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition, at the admission stage itself, without issuing notice to the private respondents.

¶38

4

¶39

6. Accordingly, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagicha, is directed to consider and decide the proceedings pending under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, instituted on 26.09.2025, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶40

7. It is made clear that if notice has already been issued to the parties in the pending proceedings, no fresh notice shall be required to be issued.

¶41

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

9. No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/- Sd/-

¶44

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶45

Yogesh

Mahendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Kachruram Bhuarya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsharan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Uma Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

N.A. Jarin (Dead) through Ansar Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishnarao Katare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayaz Ahamed Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh