1 2026:CGHC:5121-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 232 of 2026 Basant Kumar Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years Residence Of Street No. 74, Quarter No. 5-B, Police Station Kotwali, Sector- 6, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Accused) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. Police Station- Purani Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Chandrika Singh Yadav S/o Late L S Yadav Aged About 51 Years Residence Of North Vasundhara Nagar, Bhilai-3 P.S. Purani Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents __________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present CRMP has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in CRMP No.3467/2024, by which the earlier CRMP was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate from his earlier counsel, he could not engage another counsel to pursue the matter and, therefore, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the said date, resulting in dismissal of the earlier CRMP No.3467/2024. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.30 17:19:27 +0530 2 Learned counsel further prayed that the said order be recalled and the matter involving in the said petition be decided on merits. 2. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is evident that after obtaining NOC from his earlier counsel, the petitioner was under an obligation to engage another counsel to pursue the matter, but he failed to engage a counsel and the present application has been filed. The dismissal of the earlier petition was, therefore, on account of the petitioner’s own lapse. 3. It is further apparent that in CRMP No.3467/2024, the petitioner had sought quashing of the FIR. As stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner and the case is presently fixed for framing of charges. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to recall the order dated 13.11.2025. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 5. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to law, if he is aggrieved by the charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid FIR. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Rahul