Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Mahavir Prasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 5 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Mr. Anil Gulati
Failure to prosecute leads to dismissal of petition.
Headnote:The petitioners filed a petition to quash FIR No. 172/2022 and charge-sheet No. 158/2022 under various sections, alleging false implications. During the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, indicating their lack of interest. The court determined that no productive outcome could arise from prolonged proceedings. The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. representation and prosecution concerns in court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition filed for quashing fir and charge-sheet. (Para 3) |
| 3. non-appearance indicates disinterest in prosecution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. petition dismissal due to lack of prosecution. (Para 6) |
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
11.09. 2025
1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition when the case is called out.
2. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, are present.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s):-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the F.I.R. no.172/2022 dated 02.09.2022 and charge-sheet no.158/2022 dated 10.10.2022 filed against the present petitioners in which the petitioners has been falsely implicated U/s 498A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. & 4, 5 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Act , in the interest of justice.”
4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 jointly submit that the co-accused namely Shyam Kumar Gupta has filed another petition being CRMP No.2810/2023, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.06.2024, as none appeared to prosecute the matter on his behalf.
5. In the present case also, when the matter is taken up, none has chosen to appear for the petitioners despite repeated calls. This conduct clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition any further.
6. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
