1 2026:CGHC:19323-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1167 of 2026 Aslam Khan S/o Late Mansoor Ahmed Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Kondagaon, P.S. Kondagaon, Dist. Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur 2. Superintendent of Police Dist. Kondagaon (C.G.) 3. The Station House Officer Police Station Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) 4. Xxxxx (Prosecutrix) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Anusha Naik, 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 27.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.27 17:56:58 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing entire charge-sheet including the FIR No. 51/2026 for the offences under Section 62, 64, 64(2) of BNS and Section 6, 7 & 8 of POCSO Act filed before the Additional Sessions Judge FTC (POCSO) Kondagaon (C.G.) and in consequences quash the order of taking cognizance dated 27.03.2026 and pleased to quash entire criminal case (i.e. Special (Sexual) Case No. 15 of 2026 between State vs. Aslam Khan & Another) to the extent of petitioner being abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application being I.A. No. 3 of 2026 has been filed seeking withdrawal of the present petition. It is submitted that subsequent to the filing of the petition, charges have been framed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 3 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 3 of 2026 is allowed. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him in law before the appropriate forum. 6. Certified copy of the FIR, charge-sheet and other documents, if any, filed by the petitioner, be returned to him after retaining photocopies thereof on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan