1 2026:CGHC:597-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 114 of 2025 1 - Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Rampal Sahu Aged About 48 Years Director, Rampal Steel, R/o Plot No. 271, Small Factory Area, Bhandara Road, Near Harihar Mandir, Pritam Complex, Nagpur (Ms) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Natthulal Agrawal Aged About 59 Years Partner- M/s Chhattisgarh Steel Traders, Raipur Resident Of Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 . 01 .202 6 1. Heard B.P. Sharma, learned counsel along with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, and Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional A.G., appearing for State/respondents No. 1. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash the entire final report/ charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) filed consequent to registration of FIR including the order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2022 passed in case No. 15628/2022 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur and all consequential proceedings being illegal and amounting to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and in violation of petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights, in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. On perusal of memo of the present petition, it transpires that the present petition is drafted with the prayer which is defective one, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition with such a vague and sketchy prayer as the learned counsel for the petitioner has wrongly impleaded the respondent No. 2 who is not the complainant in the present case and the FIR was lodged by one Saurabh Tola, to which learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file afresh petition with proper prayer. 3 4. Learned State Counsel has no objection. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for subject to depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost in the Registry of this Court by the petitioner as the interim order was passed by this Court on 13.01.2025 and the learned counsel for the petitioner did not take pains to see the array of respondent while drafting the petition and has wasted the precious time of the Court. 6. The petitioner shall submit a receipt of deposit of cost at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any, and the amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual & Hearing Impaired, Bilaspur. 7. Interim order stands vacated. 8. Certified copy of the FIR, charge-sheet and other documents may be returned back to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.01.07 19:15:03 +0530