1 2025:CGHC:44263-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 380 of 2024 Haridas Dahariya S/o Rajaram Dahariya Aged About 35 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jarvay, P.S. Purani Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai -3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Purani Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Hasmat Alam, S/o Nasrat Alam, Aged About 40 Years House No. 643, Ward No. 17, Uttar (North) Vasundhara Nagar, Umda Road, P.S. Purani Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai, -3, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.03 11:11:49 +0530 2 No. 1/State and Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may, kindly, be pleased to aside and quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner at P.S. Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) vide Crime No. 0475 of 2023, on 05.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the entire investigation made pursuant to this FIR.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition was originally filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the investigation was concluded, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court, charges were framed against the petitioner, and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence. He further submits that, without informing or consulting him, the petitioner independently filed another petition being CRMP No. 2239 of 2025, wherein the petitioner specifically challenged the charge-sheet as well as the order framing charges. The said petition, however, was dismissed by this Court on 18.07.2025 on merits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that he 3 has no knowledge about the aforesaid subsequent petition filed by the petitioner. 5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that two separate petitions were filed by the petitioner— one (the present petition) challenging the FIR, and another (CRMP No.2239 of 2025) challenging the charge-sheet and the order framing charges. Since the latter petition has already been dismissed by this Court on merits, the relief sought in the present petition, which is per se connected to the same proceedings, cannot now be entertained. 6. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present petition does not survive for consideration and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan