1 CGHC010364282022 2026:CGHC:33677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 685 of 2023 Khileshwari @ Khushbu Sharma (Advocate) D/o Udho Prasad Sharma, W/o Surjit Singh Jaysi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda Near J.J.City Center Hospital Birkona Road P.S. Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh at Present Rajdhani Park, Nagloi Gali No. 8, Delhi 110041 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home And Police Affairs, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur, Range District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Seepat Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Surjit Singh Jaysi S/o Raghuvir Prasad Jaysi, Working As Police Constable, P.S. Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Prashant Agrawal The Then Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur at Present Superintendent Of Police Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Sunita Nag The Then Sub Inspector And Enquiry Officer Of The Case, Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.03 18:03:10 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 03.08.2026 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition even in two rounds. 2. Dr. Arham Siddqui, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State, is present. 3. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition on repeated calls and it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh