1 2026:CGHC:16770-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1030 of 2026 Nitesh Gupta S/o Kishor Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandra Nagar, Road - 15, Plot No. -390, Bhilai Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.13 18:17:48 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 682 of 2025 dated 09.12.2025, registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge-sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, as being illegal, arbitrary and without any material on record (Annexure P/1). b. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 04.02.2026 bearing No. 13 of 2026, filed for the offences under Section 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge- sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, as being unsustainable in law. (Annexure P/2). (Annexure P/2). c. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, taking cognizance in Criminal Case No. 2855 of 2026, in offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 3 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge-sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994 as well as all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including proceedings under the sections added thereafter in the charge-sheet, pending before the said Court against the petitioner herein (Annexure P/3)” 3. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to implead the complainant, namely, Dr. Vinay Sharma, who is a necessary party for proper adjudication, since the case has been registered on the basis of his complaint. 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petition has been filed in a casual manner without impleading the complainant as a party-respondent. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading the complainant as a respondent. 6. Learned State counsel has no objection to the said prayer. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs before the Registry of this Court and producing the 4 receipt thereof at the time of filing any fresh petition. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Specialized Adoption Agency, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.). 8. Certified copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, and other documents, if any, be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan