Chhattisgarh High Court
REVP/184/2026 of SMT. MANTI SAHU Vs MAHESH GANJIR on 15 July 2026
2026:CGHC:30297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 184 of 2026 Smt. Manti Sahu W/o Mahesh Ganjir Aged About 49 Years R/o- Village- Belgaon, PO- Jathkanhar, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Mahesh Ganjir S/o Dharmu Ganjir, Aged About
CGHC010221192026
2026:CGHC:30297
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 184 of 2026
Smt. Manti Sahu W/o Mahesh Ganjir Aged About 49 Years R/o- Village- Belgaon, PO- Jathkanhar, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
Mahesh Ganjir S/o Dharmu Ganjir, Aged About 51 Years, R/o- Sevatapara, Ward No.- 8, Dongargarh- District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Petitioner- Smt. Manti Sahu : In person
For Respondent
: Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate appears along with Ms. Anju Verma, Advocate, on advance copy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 16.07.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This review petition has been filed questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22/04/2026 passed in ACQA No. 276 of 2023, whereby, the judgment dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Complaint Case No. 3028/2011, has been affirmed while dismissing her appeal.
2. Having gone through the reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment, I do not find any clerical or arithmetical error therein, so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment under the review jurisdiction and, in absence of any clerical or arithmetical mistake, the Review Petition as framed cannot be held to be maintainable under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE sunita