1 2025:CGHC:6958-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 485 of 2025 Shilpa Suman W/o Manish Koomar Aged About 40 Years R/o Opp. Nath Hospital (Near Kadru Over Bridge), P.O. Kadru, P.S. Argora, Town And District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Thana In-Charge Police Station- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Sunil Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Shyamlal Dewangan Aged About 48 Years Partner Of M/s Vijay Dewangan, Subhas Nagar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren along with Mr. Nitin Prasad, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.02.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.07 18:12:29 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Nitin Prasad (through Video Conferencing) and Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “(I) Quash FIR No. 337/2022 registered at Police Station Dhamtari on 05.07.2022 U/s 420 IPC; (ii) Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the FIR in question has not been registered against the present petitioner and further he has no any connection with the present case, he is challenging the same on the account that just because the present petitioner was the partner in the partnership firm until 01.12.2021, namely, M/s Nilai Syndicates, the present petitioner is being roped in the present case with intention to harass her and the local police have been chasing the petitioner here and there which caused the petitioner great fear and trauma. 4. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner appears to be a pre-mature one as the petitioner is not named in the FIR in question, still he has filed the present petition to quash the same. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the above stated fact, he admits that the 3 petitioner is not named in the FIR but the police has visited her house in connection with the present case hence he has challenged the same. But, there appears to be nothing in the case to show the complicity of the petitioner in the present case in pursuance to the FIR in question. 6. Accordingly, the present is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file the same when any cause of action arises in future against the present petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet