Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58166 (CHH)

PARESH PIYUSH KANT DAVE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/1259/2022 · 2025-10-30

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53276-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1259 of 2022 Paresh Piyush Kant Dave S/o Piyushkant Dave Aged About 55 Years Proprietor Of M/s Vasu Films Global, Having Office At B-1301, Blue Orbit , 13rth Floor, Goregaon Mulund Link Road , Malad West Mumbai 400064. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Homan Lal Deshmukh S/o Shri Tikaram Deshmukh Aged About 35 Years Proprietor H.D. Productions, R/o C- 148, Akansha Kunj Risali Bhilai, Police Station Newai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For State / Respondent No.1: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 31 . 10 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow this petition by quashing the FIR No. 378/2020 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though on the last date of hearing, two weeks’ time was granted to respondent No.2 to file reply, but in the meantime, charge-sheet has been submitted as such, he wants to withdraw the instant petition to challenge the said charge-sheet. 4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra