MUKUL PANDEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/793/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010095392026

Filing Number

CRMP/4118/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRMP/793/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS RELATING TO QUASHING OF FIR / CHALLAN ( 1446 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUKUL PANDEY

    Adv. Gyan Prakash Shukla,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV, ,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Vikesh Kumar Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Mukul Pandey's petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly assaulting a victim with a motorcycle. The court found prima facie evidence supporting cognizable offences through medical documents, witness statements, and investigation materials, holding that disputed factual questions about the petitioner's active role versus passive presence must be adjudicated at trial, not at the quashing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Additional Registrar(j)

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/793/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Mukul Pandey's petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly assaulting a victim with a motorcycle. The court found prima facie evidence supporting cognizable offences through medical documents, witness statements, and investigation materials, holding that disputed factual questions about the petitioner's active role versus passive presence must be adjudicated at trial, not at the quashing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case