1 2025:CGHC:60196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3748 of 2025 1. Parag Chelwani S/o Chandarlal Totaldas Chelwani Aged About 36 Years R/o Plot No. 18, Sindhu Nagar Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, M.H. 2. Chandarlal Totaldas Chelwani S/o Lt. Totaldas Chelwani Aged About 62 Years R/o Plot No. 18, Sindhu Nagar Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, M.H. 3. Maya Chelwani W/o Chandarlal Totaldas Chelwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Plot No. 18, Sindhu Nagar Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, M.H. 4. Riya Anandani W/o Vijay Anandani Aged About 32 Years R/o Maninagar, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, Currently At - 1419, Boone Rd Se Salem, Or 97306, USA 5. Vijay Anandani S/o Ashok Anandani Aged About 33 Years R/o Maninagar, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, Currently At - 1419, Boone Rd Se Salem, Or 97306, USA ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Mahila Thana, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shweta Chelwani W/o Parag Chelwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Through Father Lt. Shyam Khattar, Rajiv Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate through video conferencing. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Prakhar Dutt, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.11 18:51:22 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11/12/ 202 5 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Prakhar Dutt, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned FIR No. 113/23 dated 09.09.2023 registered by PS Mahila Thana District Raipur (C.G.) for offences under Section 498A, 34, 377 of the IPC against all the petitioners, and further for quashing the charge-sheet bearing Number 85/24 dated 15.08.2024 under Section 498A, 34 and 377 of the IPC, the order taking cognizance dated 21.11.2024 and the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 19638/24 in case titled as State of CG vs Parag Chelwani & Ors. 3. Today, when the matter was called, Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel, appeared before this Court through video conferencing on behalf of the petitioners. However, a perusal of the memo of appearance filed on 04.12.2025 by Mr. Vinay Nagdev along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Mr. Durlabh Kumar Agrawal, Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Girish Sahu, Mr. Faiz Kazi and Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates, reveals that it does not bear the signatures of the petitioners nor is there any signature of the person who has authorised the counsel to file the present petition on their behalf. 4. It is stated that petitioners No. 4 and 5 are presently residing abroad as on date. In view of this defect, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh with a properly authorized memo of appearance/Vakalatnama of the petitioners. 3 5. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- for having filed the petition in a casual manner and thereby wasting the valuable time of the Court. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Registry of this Court, and the receipt shall be produced at the time of filing any fresh petition. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Disabled College, Mana Camp, Raipur. 6. Certified copies of the documents annexed to the petition, if any, may be returned to the counsel for the petitioners after retaining photocopies thereof. 7. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it appropriate to issue certain directions to ensure procedural discipline and to prevent recurrence of the irregularities noticed in the present matter. It has been observed on multiple occasions that counsel have sought to appear before the Court based solely on a memo of appearance, often unsigned or without valid authorization of the litigant. Such practice is wholly impermissible. 8. It is directed that the Registry of this Court shall accept memo of appearance of the litigant only when the litigant is in custody. In all other cases, a proper Vakalatnama, duly executed by the litigant authorizing the counsel, must be filed. The Registry shall not accept any such memo of appearance in future. 9. The Registrar General of this Court shall ensure strict compliance with this direction, as this is the second such instance brought to the notice of this Court, the earlier one being in Cr.M.P No. 2908 of 2025, where the memo of appearance was also filed unsigned by the petitioner therein. On 09.12.2025, in the said case, this Court had observed as under: 4 “Today, when the matter was called, Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate appeared before this Court to advance the arguments and submitted that a memo of appearance has been filed by him along with Mr. Akash Sahu and Mr. Himanshu Karsh, Advocates. But, from a perusal of the memo of appearance filed by Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate, it shows that the memo of appearance has not been signed by the petitioner authorizing Mr. Sumit Singh to appear in the matter, and it is blank. On the other hand, Mr. AkashSahu, who had already filed his memo of appearance in the case, has again signed the memo of appearance filed by Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. This Court further observes that earlier two memo of appearance filed by Mr. Akash Sahu and Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocates. At this stage, Mr. Akash Sahu is also appearing in the matter, when called upon on the said issue, he could not give any reply. But as both the counsel tendered their unconditional apology, we drop the matter. Since Mr. Akash Sahu, Advocate, is representing the petitioner and is to argue the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to reject the memo of appearance filed by Mr. Sumit Singh and Mr. Himanshu Karsh, Advocates, seeking to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted two weeks time to file reply and thereafter, two weeks time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder. List the case thereafter” 5 10. It is further evident from the record of the present petition that no afÏdavit has been filed by the petitioners in support of the present petition. 11. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate General has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 126 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, which mandates that certain petitions shall be accompanied by an afÏdavit. The said Rule reads as under: “126. The following petitions shall be accompanied by an afÏdavit made by the petitioner or his duly authorized Agent:- (1) For review made upon the ground of the discovery of new and important matter of evidence; (2) For stay of execution; (3) For vacating an order staying execution; (4) For security under Order XLI, Rules 6 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (5) For re-admission or restoration of an appeal or application dismissed for default of appearance or for non- payment of process fee or paper-book costs; (6) For action for contempt of Court; (7) For substitution of parties; (8) For the appointment or discharge of guardians ad-litem or next friends; (9) For transfer of any civil or criminal case; (10) For action under [Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023]: Provided that the Court may direct a party to file an afÏdavit in any other matter.” 12. It is hereby clarified that in all cases, a properly executed Vakalatnama shall mandatorily be filed. Mere filing of a memo of appearance shall not be treated as a substitute for a valid Vakalatnama. The only exception to this 6 requirement shall apply where the litigant is in judicial custody. In such circumstances, where the litigant is unable to execute a Vakalatnama due to incarceration, the petition should accompany by an authorisation letter and an afÏdavit of the authorized person or next friend, afÏrming that the litigant is in custody and unable to execute a Vakalatnama; and that the counsel has been duly authorized to represent him; and the statements made in the petition and the documents annexed thereto are true and correct to the best of the litigant’s knowledge and belief. The Registry shall, therefore, strictly refrain from accepting any memo of appearance in the absence of a Vakalatnama, except where the litigant is in custody and the above conditions are fulfilled. 13. In the opinion of this Court, it is indeed unusual that a petition containing substantive prayers and averments has been filed without any supporting afÏdavit. In the absence of an afÏdavit, the genuineness and veracity of the statements made in the petition cannot be verified. Further, a litigant who is approaching the Court for redressal of his grievance and seeking appropriate relief from the Court, has an accountability to be fair and come to the Court with clean hands and disclose the necessary particulars. For a petition to have legal sanctity, an afÏdavit in support of its contents ought to accompany it. 14. The requirement of an afÏdavit is not a mere formality. A litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of this Court must act with candour, transparency and a sense of responsibility. The afÏdavit serves as a solemn afÏrmation of the truthfulness of the statements made and the authenticity of the documents annexed. In the absence of an afÏdavit, the genuineness of the contents cannot be verified, and it gives rise to the undesirable possibility that the litigant may subsequently deny having filed the petition, or claim that certain statements or annexures were never furnished by him. Such situations create serious complications in judicial proceedings and undermine the credibility of the 7 justice-delivery process. A litigant is equally accountable for ensuring that only correct facts are disclosed before the Court, and that all documents filed are authentic and properly verified. Filing petitions without afÏdavits dilutes this accountability and cannot be permitted. 15. The Registrar General is also directed to take note of this issue and take immediate steps for the compliance of this order and further place the matter on administrative side for appropriate orders, if so required. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan / Amit