1 2025:CGHC:23322-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 311 of 2025 1 Raj Kumar Prajapati S/o Devanand Prajapati Aged About 36 Years R/o Soso, Navagarh, Police Station Sikidiri, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), Pin- 835103 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Anil Kumar Gupta I- 103, Ashoka Heights, Mova, Police Station Pandri (Mova), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 The Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Bank, Kantatoli Chowk, Purliya Road, Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 10:55:02 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(I) 0.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. dated 14-02-2025 for offence under section 318 (4) and 3 (5) of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent no. 1 to do the needful to defreeze Bank Account no. 50100679951159, H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch Kantatoli Chowk, Purliya Road, Rachi, (Jharkhand) maintained by petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent no. 3 to defreeze the Bank account no. 50100679951159. 10.4 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper the Hon'ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an FIR was 3 lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner with regard to cheating. He would further submit that subsequently respondent No. 2/ complainant had also made an application to the concerned police Station that he does not want to press the said FIR. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 5. Perusal of the documents shows that the said application of the respondent No. 2/ complainant not to press the FIR has been received by the concerned police station on 02.04.2025, which according to the petitioner has not been considered till date. 6. Considering the above facts, the concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to verify the said fact and do the needful. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ Jyoti