1 CGHC010271352026 2026:CGHC:32183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1939 of 2026 1 - Satyavada Gouri Shankar S/o Appisetti Late Aged About 50 Years R/o 88, Door No. 7-46, Govind Nagar Colony, Old Amiyodaya Degree College, Srikakulam Rural, Andhra Pradesh 2 - Satyavada Lakshmi W/o Satyavada Gouri Shankar Aged About 45 Years R/o 88, Door No. 7-46, Govind Nagar Colony, Old Amiyodaya Degree College, Srikakulam Rural, Andhra Pradesh --- Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vempatapu Santi Sai W/o Satyavada Kodanda Ramu R/o Railway Quarter No. 707/2, Wireless Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Paidi Visweswar Rao, Advocate along with Mr. Palash Prakash Rajani, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.30 10:52:42 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/07/2026 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR No. 0033/2026 dated 28.05.2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2, have approached this Court contending that the impugned FIR is the outcome of matrimonial discord between their son and respondent No.2. According to the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated by making vague, omnibus and general allegations of cruelty and harassment without attributing any specific overt act to them. It is further their case that both the petitioners are senior citizens suffering from serious medical ailments and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, they have prayed for quashment of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false, general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose the commission of any offence so far as the present petitioners are concerned. It is further submitted that the petitioners are aged persons suffering from various ailments and have already been 3 enlarged on bail by the concerned Police Station. During the course of hearing, learned counsel fairly submits that though the husband of respondent No.2 and the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 are also arrayed as accused in the impugned FIR, they have not been impleaded as parties in the present petition. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made in the petition and submits that the allegations disclosed in the FIR require investigation. It is further submitted that the husband and the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, who are also accused in the impugned FIR, have not been impleaded as parties in the present petition and, therefore, the prayer for quashment of the FIR cannot be effectively considered in their absence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the writ petition. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the dispute giving rise to the registration of the impugned FIR is essentially matrimonial in nature. It is also not in dispute that the husband of respondent No.2, who is the main party to the matrimonial dispute, as well as the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, are also named as accused in the impugned FIR, but neither of them has been impleaded as a party in the present petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a petition seeking quashment of the entire FIR, the presence of all the accused persons, particularly the husband, who is the main contesting party, would be necessary for an effective adjudication. This Court also proposed to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre of this 4 Court, considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute and with a view to exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. However, in the absence of the husband of respondent No. 2, who is the main accused as well as the party to the matrimonial dispute, as a petitioner before this Court, such a course cannot be adopted and the matter cannot be referred to mediation. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading the husband and the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 as parties and after taking such other steps as may be available in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 9. The certified copy of the annexures shall be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners after retaining its attested true copy. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved