1 2025:CGHC:45758-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2813 of 2025 Ramesh Gangwani S/o Sakharmal Gangwani Aged About 68 Years R/o Purani Basti Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.09 17:33:50 +0530 2 “a. Quash the FIR date 19.07.2021, bearing Crime No. 189 of 2021 (Annexure P/1), registered at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law; b. Quash the charge-sheet dated 28.12.2021, bearing charge-sheet No. 307 of 2021 (Annexure P/2), filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged offence under Section 292-C of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; c. Quash the cognizance order dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur and all consequential/subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 4689 of 2022 against the petitioner in connection with the said FIR and charge-sheet; d. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not arrayed the complainant as a party to the petition. The complainant is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the matter since the case against the petitioner has been registered on his complaint. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application has been filed today itself seeking permission to amend the cause-title of the petition so as to array the 3 complainant as a party. 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition has been filed in a casual manner without impleading the complainant as a party-respondent, and only thereafter has the petitioner sought amendment of the cause-title. We are not inclined to accept the said application. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with a proper cause-title. 5. Learned State counsel has no objection to the said prayer. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs before the Registry of this Court and producing the receipt of the same at the time of filing of any fresh petition. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). 7. Certified copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, and other documents, if any, be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan