FIR-quashing petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile and costs for inadequate interim relief.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 233/2026 dated 13.08.2026, registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 34 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

They also filed an interim application seeking a stay of the “effect and operation” of the FIR during pendency of the petition, but did not specifically seek a stay of arrest.

Upon this omission being noticed, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition containing an appropriate prayer. The State did not oppose the request.

1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, with liberty to file a fresh petition containing an appropriate interim prayer.

2. Whether costs should be imposed for filing the petition and interim application in a casual manner without seeking a specific prayer for stay of arrest.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a petitioner may be permitted to withdraw proceedings with liberty to institute fresh proceedings containing appropriate relief, subject to the Court’s discretion and appropriate conditions.

The Court also exercised its discretion to impose compensatory costs where defective or casual pleadings result in wastage of judicial time.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 34 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but the Court did not adjudicate the merits of those allegations or lay down any substantive rule concerning those offences.

The Court noted that the interim application sought only a stay of the “effect and operation” of the FIR and did not expressly seek protection against arrest.

Since the petitioners’ intended interim relief was therefore not properly framed, the Court accepted their request to withdraw the petition and granted liberty to file a fresh petition with an appropriate prayer.

However, considering that the omission reflected a casual approach and had caused wastage of the Court’s valuable time, the Court made the liberty conditional upon payment of costs of ₹5,000.

No finding was made on the validity of the FIR or the merits of the alleged offences.

The receipt of payment was directed to be produced when filing any fresh petition.

The amount was ordered to be transmitted to the Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur.

The interim application was consequently disposed of, and certified copies of documents, if any, were directed to be returned after retaining photocopies.