SURAJ DHRITLAHRE vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1274/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010176912026

Filing Number

CRMP/7480/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1274/2026

Registration Date

01-May-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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ DHRITLAHRE

    Adv. KHILENDRA SAHU,RAJENDRA PATEL,RAJENDRA PATEL, ,ANIRUDDHA SHRIVASTAVA,ANIRUDDHA SHRIVASTAVA,RAJENDRA PATEL

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Jamuna Diwakar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

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

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Suraj Dhritlahre's petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him for alleged rioting and assault. Though the petitioner's name was added during investigation rather than in the original FIR, and he claimed no prima facie case existed, the court declined to quash proceedings, holding that factual disputes must be resolved through trial evidence. The court applied the settled principle that prosecutions should not be stifled at threshold unless compelling circumstances exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

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

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1274/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Suraj Dhritlahre's petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him for alleged rioting and assault. Though the petitioner's name was added during investigation rather than in the original FIR, and he claimed no prima facie case existed, the court declined to quash proceedings, holding that factual disputes must be resolved through trial evidence. The court applied the settled principle that prosecutions should not be stifled at threshold unless compelling circumstances exist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case