1 2026:CGHC:24254-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1521 of 2026 1 - Latadevi W/o Satish Dhavalkar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Sahid Kaushal Yadav Chauk, Mathpara, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Satish Dhavalkar S/o Late Shri Darbari Lal Dhavalkar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Sahid Kaushal Yadav Chauk, Mathpara, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Mandakini Raje W/o Intejar Raje Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nayamandi Chulghat Road Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 17-06-2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.18 16:45:11 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Leekesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned F.I.R. No. 20/2026 registered at the P.S. Mahila Thana Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner's U/s 85, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS andalso to quash all the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of impugned FIR and any other reliefwhich this Hon'ble courtdeems fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 3. In the present petition, the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 has not been made a party, who is also a co-accused in the case and the present petition has been filed by mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. As the husband of the complainant is not a party in the petition, despite the dispute being matrimonial in nature it would not be possible to refer the matter for mediation for its amicable settlement. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition impleading the husband of the complainant 3 as a party. 5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition impleading the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 as a party. 7. Certified copy, if any, filed in the petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining its copy in the record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil