1 CGHC010250402026 2026:CGHC:28807-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1778 of 2026 Mukund Singh Thakur Son Of Late Prahlad Singh Thakur, Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Tikrapara, Ward No. 03, P. S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present Judicial Academy Hostel No. 02, Nehru Chowk, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Leena Agrahari, Wife Of Shri Garib Singh, Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Uslapur Amrish Vihar, Near Sagardeep Colony, Police Station. Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr.Manish Nigam and Mr.Shubhankar Singh, Advocates For Respondent No.1-State : Ms.Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Manish Nigam and Mr.Shubhankar Singh, learned BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.13 10:18:52 +0530 2 counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :- “1. Quash and set aside First Information Report No.0798/2025 dated 11.07.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, under Sections 296, 115(2), and 3(5) BNS along with all subsequent proceedings arising out of it, including Chargesheet No.692/2025 dated 01.08.2025, solely against the Petitioner Mukund Singh Thakur. 2. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1/State submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the order taking cognizance nor the order framing charges. 4. From perusal of the prayer made in the instant petition, it appears that the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings; however, the petitioner has not challenged the order taking cognizance or the order framing charges. This indicates that the prayer clause has been drafted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a casual manner, resulting in wastage of the precious time of the Court. Therefore, in the 3 opinion of this Court, the prayer made in the petition is defective. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with an appropriate prayer. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with an appropriate prayer, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court and the same shall be transmitted to the Government Specialized Adoption Agency, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.). 7. Certified copy of the documents annexed with this petition shall be returned to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photocopies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu