1 2025:CGHC:28981-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 170 of 2021 Pooja Yadav D/o Late Shri Bhanu Prasad Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Lochan Nagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Navin Sharma S/o Late Narendra Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Beladula, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocae. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate on bhealf of Mr. Chadradeep Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.06.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No.304/2015 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.01 10:25:57 +0530 2 registered at P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District:Raigarh, C.G. under Section 420 & 34 of the IPC and any subsequent/incidental proceeding, only to the extent of the instant petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged an FIR that he has been cheated by the present petitioner and other co-accused persons for providing government job. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused namely Neeraj sao had received Rs.1 lac from the respondent No.2/complainant for providing him job, but later they have not provided job to the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only working as a receptionist in the job consultancy firm and on perusal of entire evidence on record, no case is made out against the petitioner, hence, the FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner herein is absconding from long time and the other co-accused person in the present case has been convicted. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged by the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner has remedy to prefer an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharging her from the criminal case, however, without availing the same, has approached his Court. 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that his client is not responding. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case; particularly considering that the petitioner is absconding; no interim order has been passed by this Court in the present case and the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR, hence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law, if any, further cause of action arise. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ Amardeep