High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/490/2011dismissed

Jai Prakash Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2019-05-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 490 of 2011 Jai Prakash Shukla, S/o Late Govind Prasad Shukla, aged about 49 years, R/o Behind Sai Temple, Dangania, College Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Shri Venkateshwar Singh Banafar (Notary), aged about 63, Advocate, R/o Village & Post Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3. Station House Officer Incharge, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Vinodini Tandi, Sub Inspector, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Shri Niranjan Shrivas, Advocate, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. Shri Madan Singh Khandey, Advocate, Aged about 42 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

7. Shri R.L. Ratre, Advocate, Aged about 46 years, R/o Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

8. Shri Ayodhya Prasad Chandra, Advocate, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kanshigarh, Post Kanshigarh, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

9. Shri Data Ram, Son of Paras Chandra, Aged about 42 years, R/o Village Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. 10.

Shri Age Das, Son of Pitamber Das, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Kalmidih, Post Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

For Petitioner :

Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha and Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents :

Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01/05/2019

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. However, pursuant to the quashing of the F.I.R, Cr.M.P. No. 656 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner for seeking quashment of chargesheet and F.I.R. and the same was allowed by the order dated 02/01/2017. As such, this criminal miscellaneous petition has become infructuous.

2. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed having become infructuous.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet