Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Roshan Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPCR No. 410 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur
Judicial efficiency requires clarity in legal petitions; vague drafts may lead to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2025 - Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3) - Arms Act, 2025 - Sections 25, 27 - Petition withdrawn for defects in prayer - The petition prayed for quashing of FIR, charge-sheet, and orders by JMFC but lacked specificity - Court dismissed the petition with liberty to refile. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Procedural Defects in Petition - The importance of proper drafting in legal submissions to avoid dismissal for vagueness. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, represented through his wife, sought the quashing of an FIR and associated proceedings, claiming wrongful implications in a murder case.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petition defective and allowed withdrawal with the option to refile with proper prayers, imposing a cost for casual submission.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the defects in the petition's drafting and the appropriateness of the prayers made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clarity and specificity in legal requests to ensure efficiency within judicial proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for clear representation in legal petitions. (Para 1) |
| 2. court emphasizes the necessity for specificity. (Para 2) |
| 3. petition dismissed due to vague content. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. returning documents with conditions set. (Para 6) |
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
21 .07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Infromation Report dated 29.03.2025 registered at police station Pali and subsequent charge-sheet submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence 103(1), 61(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 25, 27 of Arms Act and the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by JMFC Pali taking cognizance in the matter and also for quashing of criminal case no. 969/2025 pending before the learned JMFC and subsequent proceeding.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondent authorities to discharge the falsely implicated accused persons, namely Shri Roshan Singh Thakur, Shri Prabhat Dubey, Shri Durgesh Singh Thakur alias Lala Thakur, Shri Vivek Kaushik, Shri Sanskar Thakur, Shri Gaurav Singh Thakur, Shri Vasu Thakur, Shri Mayank Singh, Shri Kailash Kaivart, and Shri Surendra Singh Chauhan, from the first information report and consequential investigation, as they were not present at the scene and have been wrongfully implicated.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue directions to the respondents to investigate the role of Sanjay Bhavnani and his associates in orchestrating the murder of Rohit Jaiswal and the subsequent attacks on the petitioner's family and relatives.
10.5 That, any other writs and direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner with cost of the petition.”
3. On perusal of the prayer in the present petition, it transpires that the present petition is drafted with the prayers which are defective as there are some defects, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition with such a vague and sketchy prayer, to which learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file afresh petition with proper prayer. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for subject to depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- for filing such a petition in a casual manner and thereby wasting the precious time of this Court, as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and submit a receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any and the amount so deposited, if any shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Intellectually Retarded Girls, Gangapur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
6. Certified copy of the impugned charge-sheet as well as other documents annexed with the writ petition may be returned back to the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same.
