1 2025:CGHC:6423-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 471 of 2025 Atul Singh Parihar S/o Late Hira Singh Parihar Aged About 40 Years R/o Behind Alankar Bhawan, Jorapara Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Sarkanda Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Suraj Kumar Ghosh S/o Late Ranjeet Kumar Ghosh Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Kraihapara Ps Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.06 17:56:06 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no.1088/2019 dated 30.09.2024 & quash the final report dated 21.05.2023 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before JMF Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) as Criminal Case No.4554/2023 and discharge from the case to the applicant.” 3. On perusal of the prayer in the present petition, it transpires that the present petition is drafted in a very casual manner and the prayer seems to be defective one as in the prayer, it has been mentioned “to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime No.1088/2019 dated 30.09.2024” instead without mentioning the name of Police Station or District and further to quash the Final Report dated 30.09.2022 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Even the offence under which the FIR was registered has also not been mentioned or in which offence the charge-sheet has been submitted. 4. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why he has not mentioned the requisite details in the prayer clause regarding which the petition has been filed, he tried to justify the prayer without giving any plausible explanation and expressed his inability to correct the defects in the prayer clause and insisted upon the prayer which he has sought and tried to argue the case and further submitted that the petition may be dismissed on merits 3 as he would approach to higher forum. The Court deprecated the said conduct the of the counsel for the petitioner and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as despite granting opportunity by this Court for amending the prayer as noted above, the learned counsel insisted for considering the defective prayer made in the petition and submits that the petition be dismissed on merits. However, later on, since the counsel has tendered his unconditional oral apology and sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with the liberty to file afresh petition with proper prayer, while permitting the withdraw this petition with liberty as aforesaid, we refrain from imposing exemplary cost, however, the learned counsel is warned to remain careful in future. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for subject to depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from today and the said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual & Hearing Impaired, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Certified copy of the impugned FIR and other documents may be returned back to the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu