KIRAN DEWANGAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1207/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010167012026

Filing Number

CRMP/7044/2026

Filing Date

23-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1207/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

APPLICATION U/S 528 OF B.N.S.S. 2023 ( 1411 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KIRAN DEWANGAN

    Adv. JITENDRA GUPTA

  2. 2.Girija Shankar Dewangan

    Adv. JITENDRA GUPTA,DEVENDRA KUMAR SWARNKAR

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMP 1207/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petition filed by Kiran Dewangan and Girija Shankar Dewangan challenging the charge framing order in a dowry harassment case under IPC Section 498A. The court found sufficient prima facie material in the FIR alleging the petitioners harassed the wife for bearing daughters, pressured her for divorce, confiscated her ornaments and salary, and made dowry demands. Following Supreme Court precedent that charge-framing requires only prima facie case assessment (not strict evidentiary evaluation), the court upheld the trial court's charge order as proper and devoid of perversity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1207/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMP 1207/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petition filed by Kiran Dewangan and Girija Shankar Dewangan challenging the charge framing order in a dowry harassment case under IPC Section 498A. The court found sufficient prima facie material in the FIR alleging the petitioners harassed the wife for bearing daughters, pressured her for divorce, confiscated her ornaments and salary, and made dowry demands. Following Supreme Court precedent that charge-framing requires only prima facie case assessment (not strict evidentiary evaluation), the court upheld the trial court's charge order as proper and devoid of perversity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case