Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:11362-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 3176 of 2024
Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde S/o Rustam Rao Borde Aged About 40 Years
R/o Flat No. 202, 2nd Floor, Mahalaxmi Apartment, Beed Bypass,
Aurangabad (MH).
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh- The Officer In Charge, Police Station
Dindayal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Vinita Jha W/o Mukesh Jha Aged About 32 Years R/o Kailashpuri Near
Yogmata Mandir Tikrapara Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Mukesh Jha S/o Ayodhya Datt Jha Aged About 43 Years R/o Kailashpuri
Near Yogmata Mandir Tikrapara Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Ashish Tiwari S/o Madan Mohan Tiwari, Aged About 43 Years R/o Sector-
10, Civik Center, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Ms. Pushpa Gupta, Advocate
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
07/03/2025
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing/setting aside
the FIR No. 0462/2023, dated 12.10.2023, registered at Dindayal
Police Station, District Raipur under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860 and
all consequential proceedings arising out of or emanating therefrom.
2. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
with the following relief:
“A. Allow the present Petition and quash the impugned
FIR No. 0462/2023 dt. 12.10.2023 [P.S. Dindayal Raipur]
registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 as well as all if any consequential proceedings
arising out of or emanating therefrom; and
B. Any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
charge sheet has been filed and as such she want to withdraw the
present petition, with liberty to take recourse to law to challenge the
charge sheet.
4. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not
opposed by the State counsel.
3
5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
that the charge sheet has been filed in the matter, the present CRMP
stand dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to take recourse to law
to challenge the charge sheet, if so advised. Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved