1 2025:CGHC:54589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7775 of 2025 1 - Shivam Yadav S/o Om Prakash Yadav, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Private Work, R/o House No. 3 (Kha) Miloniganj, Sujipura, District Jabalpur (MP) 2 - Om Prakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Kishanlal Yadav Aged About 64 Years Occupation- Nil, R/o House No. 3 (Kha) Miloniganj, Sujipura, District- Jabalpur (MP). 3 - Smt. Krishna Yadav W/o Om Prakash Yadav Aged About 59 Years Occupation - House Wife, R/o House No. 3 (Kha) Miloniganj, Sujipura, District - Jabalpur (MP). ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, Sector 6 Bhilai Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pooja Yadav W/o Shivam Yadav D/o Balram Alias Ballu Yadav R/o House No. 119 Ward No. 32 Sanjay Nagar, In Front Of Manal Bhawan, New Khursipara, Bhilai (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicants : Mr. Ashish Vishwakarma, Advocate appearing through video conferencing. For Non-applicants/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants appearing through video conferencing. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The instant MCRC is being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in RCC No. 291/2023 passed by the learned RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, whereby the application for grant of permission of compromise has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to some confusion with respect to the filing of the present petitioner under the title of “MCRC”, though the prayer is for quashing the criminal proceedings of RCC No. 291/2023, the present MCRC is wrongly classified, and his explanation report is also been given in compliance of Court’s order dated 15.10.2025. Furthermore, he prays that the instant petition be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to move a petition under a proper provision under the Rules of the Court. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection. 5. Prayer is allowed. 6. Though the explanation report given by the counsel for the applicants has been perused by this Court, but it is expected from a lawyer who is practicing in various High Courts to go through the Rules of the Court before filing the petition, as it makes a very wrong impression to a litigant who is being mislead by a wrong advice. 7. In view of the above consideration, the instant MCRC is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the counsel for the applicants to move a petition in a proper provision under the Rules of the Court. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar