1 2025:CGHC:46068-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2829 of 2025 Hemesh Gandhi S/o Late Shri P.C. Gandhi Aged About 46 Years R/o Vikas Nagar, Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Incharge, Thana Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.09 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. On perusal of the prayer made in I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application seeking stay, it transpires that the petitioner has not ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.11 10:34:37 +0530 2 made any specific prayer restraining the respondents from taking coercive action pursuant to the impugned FIR. The only relief sought in the said application is for staying the effect and operation of the impugned FIR till the final disposal of the main petition in the interest of justice. 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that such a prayer is vague, sketchy, and does not clearly bring out the real intention of the petitioner. It is well settled that unless the relief sought is precise and specific, the Court cannot entertain such an application, more particularly when the petitioner is seeking to stay the very effect and operation of the FIR without seeking any protective order against coercive measures. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for stay, as the same suffers from lack of clarity and precision. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to file a fresh application containing appropriate and specific prayer(s), as may be advised. 6. Permission, as sought, is granted. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has filed the petition with a vague prayer in the stay application, has failed to remove the defects in time, and has thereby wasted the precious time of this Court, it is considered appropriate to saddle the petitioner with costs. 3 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- before the Registry of this Court. The receipt of such deposit shall be produced at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any. 8. The Registry, upon deposit of the said amount, shall transmit the same to the Special School for Intellectually Handicapped Girls, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 9. Before parting, it is observed that litigants are expected to approach this Court with due seriousness and responsibility. Filing defective petitions with vague and casual prayers not only burdens the docket but also leads to avoidable wastage of judicial time. 10. The certified copy of the impugned FIR as well as the other documents filed along with the annexures be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu