SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MEJAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRMP/1477/2024



2026:CGHC:7293-DB D by ig A it L a O lly K signed NAFR ALOK SHARMA SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.11 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1477 of 2024 Mejar Singh S/o Shri Surindar Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o C.H. 144 Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Tatibandh, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattiagarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.K.A. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Company, Siltara, Through Aakash Agrawal S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o C-402, Harshti Tower, Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Amanaka, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4 - Amrit Singh, Owner Of Khalsa Trailor Services, Office At Shop No6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5 - Dilbaag Singh, An Agent Of Amrit Singh, Office At Shop No6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

CRMP No. 1469 of 2024 Gurvinder Singh Bhatti S/o Late Sardar Sadha Singh Bhatti Aged About 47 Years R/o 62, Kharun Green Colony, Kumahari, Tehsil And District-

Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Station House Officer Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.K.A. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Company Siltara Through Aakash Agrawal, S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o C-402, Harshit Tower, Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Amanaka, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Amrit Singh @ Amrit Pal Singh Owner Of Khalsa Trailor Services, Office At Shop No.6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Dilbaag Singh At Agent Of Amrit Singh Office At Shop No. 6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Dav, on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, No. 3 Advocate For Respondent Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate.

No. 5 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

10/02/2026

1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for Respondent/State, Mr. Harsh Dave, appearing on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5.

2. It transpires from the office report that in compliance of the order dated 28.06.2024 notice issued to the Respondent No.4 has been returned unserved as he is not living in his given address.

3. Both the CRMPs have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case from the respondent no.2 police station, quash the FIR No.263/2024 against the petitioner registered at police station Dharsiva, as it is false and made with ulterior motive and further direct the police authorities to take action against the respondent no.3 to 5 or pass any other order which may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court looking to the facts and circumstance of the matter, in the interest of justice.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, engaged in the business of transportation with Punjab Cargo Movers, has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 263/2024 registered under Sections 407 and 34 IPC on the allegation that certain consignments of iron rods were not delivered to their intended destinations. The petitioners submits that no transportation order was ever placed by the complainant with him; rather, he was engaged by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 only for transporting 50 tons of i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top