Ankur Gauraha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.05.06 17:25:01 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:21048-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 1252 of 2026

¶7

1 - Ankur Gauraha S/o Rakesh Gauraha, Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. Mig, 270/8, Ruchi Vatika, Near Sbi, Branch, Raj Kishor Nagar Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

¶8

2 - Rakesh Gauraha S/o Late Kailash Chand Gauraha Aged About 64 Years R/o- House No. -Mig, 270/8, Ruchi Vatika, Near Sbi, Branch, Raj Kishor Nagar Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

¶9

3 - Smt, Rekha Gauraha W/o Rakesh Gauraha Aged About 57 Years R/o -House No.- Mig, 270/8, Ruchi Vatika, Near Sbi, Branch, Raj Kishor Nagar Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through -Station House Officer,- Police Station Sarangarh, District -Sarangarh, -Balaigarh, C.G.

¶13

2 - Bhavya Gauraha W/o Ankur Gauraha Aged About 27 Years R/o -Village Vishalpur, Sarangarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners :Mr. MalayShrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent-State:Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, DeputyGovt. Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

06.05.2026

¶19

1 Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

¶20

2

¶21

2 On perusal of the prayer made in I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application seeking stay, it transpires that the petitioner has not made any specific prayer restraining the respondents from taking coercive action pursuant to the impugned FIR. The only relief sought in the said application is for staying the effect and operation of the impugned FIR till the final disposal of the main petition in the interest of justice.

¶22

3 This Court is of the considered opinion that such a prayer is vague, sketchy, and does not clearly bring out the real intention of the petitioner. It is well settled that unless the relief sought is precise and specific, the Court cannot entertain such an application, more particularly when the petitioner is seeking to stay the very effect and operation of the FIR without seeking any protective order against coercive measures.

¶23

4 In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for stay, as the same suffers from lack of clarity and precision.

¶24

5 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to file a fresh application containing appropriate and specific prayer, as may be advised.

¶25

6 Permission, as sought, is granted. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has filed the petition with a vague prayer in the stay application, has failed to remove the defects in

¶26

3

¶27

time, and has thereby wasted the precious time of this Court, it is considered appropriate to saddle the petitioner with costs.

¶28

7 Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- before the Registry of this Court. The receipt of such deposit shall be produced at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any.

¶29

8 The Registry, upon deposit of the said amount, shall transmit the same to the Special School for Intellectually Handicapped Girls, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh .

¶30

9 Before parting, it is observed that litigants are expected to approach this Court with due seriousness and responsibility. Filing defective petitions with vague and casual prayers not only burdens the docket but also leads to avoidable wastage of judicial time.

¶31

10 The certified copy of the impugned FIR as well as the other documents filed along with the annexures be returned to the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof on record.

¶32

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶33

Anu

Ankur Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Gauraha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

In Reference Vs Ilaram Sahu and Anr.

Deepak Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Kumar Kaiwarth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sampat Ram Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwanath Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh