JAGDISH TIWARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/903/2026
Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010107702026
Filing Number
CRMP/4597/2026
Filing Date
13-Mar-2026
Registration No
CRMP/903/2026
Registration Date
27-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
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 29-Apr-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAGDISH TIWARI
Adv. Shikhar Bakhtiyar,CHHATRASAL SINGH,CHHATRASAL SINGH, ,CHAKRESH TIWARI
-
2.Amrita Tiwari
-
3.Smita @ Soni Tiwari
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Sapna Singh Rajput
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed FIR No. 118/2025 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, finding that no lawful authority existed for the police visit to their residence and that essential elements of the alleged offences (obstruction/criminal force against public servants) were not satisfied. The court determined the prosecution case was deficient as the inquiry concerned only the petitioners' son, not the petitioners themselves, making continuation of proceedings an abuse of legal process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRMP/903/2026
Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed FIR No. 118/2025 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, finding that no lawful authority existed for the police visit to their residence and that essential elements of the alleged offences (obstruction/criminal force against public servants) were not satisfied. The court determined the prosecution case was deficient as the inquiry concerned only the petitioners' son, not the petitioners themselves, making continuation of proceedings an abuse of legal process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts