Skip to content
Home » Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh High Court

Momin Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 55 – Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered – Compliance of – Officer in-charge of the police station shall take charge of the articles and keep them in safe custody until the same are delivered for FSL examination or delivered by orders of the Magistrate. Hence it is a clear mandate which is required to be followed and regarding compliance of this provision the witnesses have made casual statements – Conviction against the appellants is not sustainable.

Shripal Meshram v. Urmila Meshram

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Martial Cruelty – A decree for divorce can be granted on the ground of cruelty, however, the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined under the Act, 1955, therefore, the question as to what act or omission or conduct or behavior of a party to a marriage would constitute cruelty has to be understood in the facts and circumstances of each case.

Vishwadini Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 153A, 295A, 505(2) 188 – Quashing of FIR – Accused in her Facebook ID, posted objectionable material because of which, religious sentiments of complainant have been hurt – it was not the original written post by the accused – From perusal for the FIR, it is crystal clear that the said post is already in public domain and lot of news channels were also broadcasting the same – FIR is liable to be quashed. 2021 Cri. L.J. 3894

D.L. Divyakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (Chhattisgarh) – Rule 27 (2) – Consideration of Appeal – Appellate Authority has failed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966 and did not assign any cogent reason as to whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are justified or not and punishment is appropriate or excessive and it requires interference, as such the Appellate Authority has failed to perform its duty in deciding the appeal in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. Read More »D.L. Divyakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]