1 2026:CGHC:5123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3837 of 2025 Brijbhushan Yadav S/o Ghanshyam Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Abhishek Vihar, Phase 2, House No.30, Mangla Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Civil Line, Civil And Revenue, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Smt. Shinki Meshram W/o Shri Brijbhushan Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Sukhchan Bada, Magarpara, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.01.30 17:41:54 +0530 2 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. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023, which stood disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 seeking quashment of FIR dated 12.05.2018 bearing Crime No. 33317013180401/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 34, 341, 392, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said petition was listed before this Court on 11.08.2025. On repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the dispute between the parties had already been settled. In view of the said submission, this Court disposed of Cr.M.P. No. 3 434/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition being Cr.M.P. No. 3583/2025 under Section 528 BNSS for the same cause of action. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.11.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance. 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear on 11.08.2025 due to alleged vehicle breakdown and that the petition was disposed of on the basis of submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 was disposed of on 11.08.2025 in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel due to sudden breakdown of the counsel’s vehicle, as a result of which he could not reach the Court in time and the matter was disposed of solely on the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 regarding compromise, without hearing the petitioner on merits; it is further submitted that immediately on coming to know about the disposal, the petitioner applied for the 4 certified copy and approached this Court without delay, and although the disputes between the parties were otherwise settled and an Iqrarnama was executed, due to a typographical error the present FIR could not be mentioned therein, resulting in the FIR remaining pending, and therefore, the petitioner, who has always intended to have the matter decided on merits, prays that the petition be restored in the interest of justice. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 was finally disposed of by this Court on 11.08.2025 on the basis of compromise and not dismissed for default, and therefore the same cannot be restored by invoking Section 528 BNSS, which does not provide for recall or restoration of a concluded criminal proceeding; it is further submitted that the explanation of non-appearance of petitioner’s counsel is inconsequential once a final order has been passed, and the earlier filing and withdrawal of Cr.M.P. No. 3583/2025 does not revive any right in favour of the petitioner, hence the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the impugned FIR; and the materials available on record. 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is evident that Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the dispute between the parties had been settled. The said order was not a dismissal for default or non-prosecution, but a conscious disposal of the petition after hearing the respondents. Once a criminal petition is finally disposed of, this Court becomes functus ofÏcio, and such an order cannot be recalled or restored in the absence of an express statutory provision. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not confer any power upon this Court to restore or recall a concluded criminal proceeding. The explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding non-appearance of his counsel on the date of hearing, even if accepted, does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to reopen a matter which has already attained finality. Further, the subsequent filing and withdrawal of Cr.M.P. No. 3583/2025 with liberty to take appropriate steps 6 does not revive or create a right to seek restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 434/2023 is held to be not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib