AMAR SINGH KAUSHIK vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1512/2026

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010201472026

Filing Number

CRMP/8548/2026

Filing Date

13-May-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1512/2026

Registration Date

05-Jun-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

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAR SINGH KAUSHIK

    Adv. AVINASH CHAND SAHU,AMAN TAMRAKAR,AMAN TAMRAKAR, ,PRIYA SHARMA,AMIT NAYAK,AMAN TAMRAKAR

  2. 2.Prashant Kaushik

  3. 3.Kajal Kaushik

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Parmila Kaushik

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: CRMP 1512/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh admitted a petition by three family members (a retired Principal and his son and daughter-in-law) challenging FIR No.02/2026, which they claim was lodged as retaliation in an ongoing matrimonial dispute with the petitioner's second wife. The petitioners argued the FIR lacks allegations of the charged offense and amounts to abuse of process. The State opposed, contending sufficient evidence exists. The court issued notice to respondents, stayed the lower court proceedings pending further hearings, and granted two weeks for reply-affidavits and one week for rejoinder. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

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

  4. 13-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1512/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMP 1512/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh admitted a petition by three family members (a retired Principal and his son and daughter-in-law) challenging FIR No.02/2026, which they claim was lodged as retaliation in an ongoing matrimonial dispute with the petitioner's second wife. The petitioners argued the FIR lacks allegations of the charged offense and amounts to abuse of process. The State opposed, contending sufficient evidence exists. The court issued notice to respondents, stayed the lower court proceedings pending further hearings, and granted two weeks for reply-affidavits and one week for rejoinder. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case