1 2026:CGHC:4850-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 57 of 2026 Smt. Reshma Parvin W/o Sakib Ansari Aged About 33 Years R/o Millantnagar, Near Maruti Suzuki Service Centre, Kharsiyanaka, Police Station Kotwali, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Mahila Thana, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Sakib Ansari S/o Faiz Ansari Aged About 34 Years R/o B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand 3 - Faiz Ansari S/o Late Rahmat Alam Ansari Aged About 58 Years R/o B- 239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand 4 - Shahin Pravin W/o Faiz Ansari Aged About 48 Years R/o B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand 5 - Rukhsar Aroshi W/o Sheikh Ayaz Aged About 30 Years R/o B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand 6 - Samrin Aroshi W/o Md. Masum Raza Aged About 32 Years R/o B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi Jharkhand Presently R/o Quarter No. 735/b, Azad Nagar, Siwandih, Bokaro, Near Idgah Maidan, Bokaro, Jharkhand ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.30 19:03:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ to direct the respondents to comply with the order dated 11/08/2025 and 13/08/2025 of the Hon'ble Court. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court shall restrain the Respondent No. 1 for sending the forged documents/notice regarding the Talaqnama. 10.4 That, further direct to lodge the F.I.R. against the respondent No, 1 on the basis of the complaints. 10.5 And kindly restore the CRMP 1962/2025 against the Respondents. 10.6 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost." 3 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, Smt. Reshma Parvin, and Respondent No. 2, Sakib Ansari, solemnized their marriage on 30.04.2024 and have a minor daughter from their wedlock. Over time, marital disputes arose, including allegations of cruelty and dowry demands by the husband and his family, leading the petitioner to lodge a complaint under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was referred to mediation by this Hon’ble Court, and a settlement agreement was executed on 11.08.2025, under which the parties agreed to reside together and the criminal proceedings (FIR No. 32/2024) were quashed by the Court on 13.08.2025, conditional upon compliance with the terms of the mediation agreement. 4. Despite the settlement, Respondent No. 2 allegedly failed to comply with the agreement, leaving the petitioner and her minor daughter in a separate flat without proper facilities. Further, Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have sent forged legal notices dated 25.11.2025 and 26.12.2025 to the petitioner, in violation of the agreement, and has not responded to notices issued by the Anjuman Islami for counseling and dispute resolution. Complaints were also lodged with police authorities and the IG, Surguja Range, regarding the non-compliance and fraudulent acts of Respondent No. 2, but no effective action was taken. 5. The petitioner contends that the acts of Respondent No. 2, including withdrawal of his application for restitution of conjugal rights after the petitioner agreed to reside with him, sending forged notices, and violating the settlement agreement, demonstrate a deliberate intent 4 to deceive the Court and evade criminal liability. As a result, she seeks directions from this Hon’ble Court to ensure compliance with the settlement, restrain the respondent from sending forged notices, direct registration of an FIR based on her complaints, and restore the quashed criminal proceedings (CRMP 1962/2025) against Respondent No. 2 and others involved, in order to safeguard her rights and the welfare of her minor daughter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would respectfully submit that the present writ petition has been filed in the context of the FIR having been quashed by this Hon’ble Court pursuant to the compromise/settlement dated 11.08.2025. However, the terms and conditions of the said compromise have not been complied with by Respondent No. 2 and other respondents, including the failure to reside together with the petitioner and the minor daughter as agreed. Learned counsel would further submit that due to non-fulfillment of the essential terms and conditions of the compromise, the protection granted to the respondents under the quashing order cannot be allowed to operate. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may consider that the quashing of the FIR was conditional and in view of the breach of the compromise, the quashing should be treated as ineffective, and the FIR should be restored and appropriate directions issued to the respondents for compliance with the compromise and protection of the petitioner’s rights. 7. Learned State Counsel respectfully submits that the FIR in question was quashed by this Hon’ble Court solely on the basis of the compromise/mediation agreement dated 11.08.2025, and the State 5 acted in accordance with law. It is submitted that the terms and conditions of the compromise have not been complied with by the parties, and any grievance arising from non-fulfillment of such terms cannot be laid at the door of the State authorities. The petitioner’s claim, therefore, lacks merit, and the appropriate remedy lies in seeking enforcement of the compromise before the competent forum. In view of the above, it is submitted that the writ petition, if sought to be pursued, should not be entertained against the State and may be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is evident that the FIR in question was quashed by this Hon’ble Court pursuant to the compromise/mediation agreement dated 11.08.2025. However, it also appears that the terms and conditions of the compromise have not been fully complied with by the parties. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners seeking withdrawal of the petition, and considering that the appropriate remedy for enforcement of the compromise lies before the competent forum, this Court finds that no further adjudication on the merits is necessary at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law for non-compliance of the compromise terms. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved