1 2025:CGHC:49514-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3031 of 2025 Hira Lal Saxena S/o Shri M.S. Saxena Aged About 54 Years R/o III D/11, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, Utter Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Khamhardih, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pawan Agrawal S/o Babulal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o A-110 Agrawal Arcade, Sale Tax Colony, Behind Shiv Mandir, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.10. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.06 17:08:37 +0530 2 2. On perusal of the prayer made in I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application seeking interim relief, it appears that the petitioner has not made any specific prayer for restraining the respondents from taking coercive action pursuant to the impugned FIR. The only relief sought in the said application is for staying the further proceedings of FIR No. 0224/2025 registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur (C.G.), till the final disposal of the present 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 3 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. 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