SUKHWANT SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRMP/1465/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 09th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010205722026

Filing Number

CRMP/8720/2026

Filing Date

15-May-2026

Registration No

CRMP/1465/2026

Registration Date

21-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas , Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas , Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan 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

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKHWANT SINGH

    Adv. ANIL TAWADKAR,PRABHAT KUMAR SAXENA,PRABHAT KUMAR SAXENA, ,Bharat Kumar,PRABHAT KUMAR SAXENA

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.XYZ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas,Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan AgrawalView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMP/1465/2026 Sukhwant Singh's petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 317/2023 (registered in 2023 for a 2018 incident involving charges under IPC Sections 195A, 294, 506, 323, 354, and 34) was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court declined interference, noting that prosecution evidence was nearly complete and the trial was at final stage, making it inappropriate to quash the FIR at that advanced stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Additional Registrar(j)

  4. 15-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMP/1465/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMP/1465/2026 Sukhwant Singh's petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 317/2023 (registered in 2023 for a 2018 incident involving charges under IPC Sections 195A, 294, 506, 323, 354, and 34) was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court declined interference, noting that prosecution evidence was nearly complete and the trial was at final stage, making it inappropriate to quash the FIR at that advanced 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