1 2025:CGHC:61787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3814 of 2025 1. Aman Lunia S/o Ashok Kumar Lunia Aged About 34 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Ayush Lunia S/o Ashok Kumar Lunia Aged About 32 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Smt. Sitara Devi Lunia W/o Ashok Kumar Lunia Aged About 59 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Ashok Kumar Lunia S/o Late Maniklal Ji Lunia Aged About 65 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahila Thana, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Prerna Lunia W/o Amasn Lonia Aged About 33 Years R/o Gali No.- 1, Shyamlal Pandey Gali, Ganjpara, Durg, Police Station And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.19 15:48:48 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/12/2025 1. Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following Prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing crime no. 77/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Durg, District-Durg dated 23.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 85 & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel pointed out that the prayer clause in the stay application is defective, inasmuch as the copy of the application supplied to the office of the learned Advocate General does not contain the prayer for stay of arrest, whereas the stay application as filed before this Court contains the correct and complete prayer, it goes to show that the learned counsel for the petitioner has acted casually while serving the copy of the same to the Office of learned Advocate General. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh 3 petition. 5. Learned State counsel has no objection. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, subject to depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court for wasting precious time of the court and producing the receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any. The said amount shall be transmitted to the Special School for intellectually Handicapped Girls, District Narayanpur C.G. 7. Certified copies of the documents, if any, may be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti