2026:CGHC:2109-DB NAFR Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BHANARKAR Date:

2026.01.14

17:54:28 +0530 CRMP No. 101 of 2026

1 - Riya Anandani W/o Vijay Anandani Aged About 32 Years

2 - Vijay Anandani S/o Ashok Anandani Aged About 33 Years Both 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)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vinay Nagdev, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government No.1-State Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Prakhar Dutt, Advocate No.2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

14.01.2026

1. Heard Mr.Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Prakhar Dutt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 113/23 dated 09.09.2023 registered by PS Mahila Thana District Raipur (C.G.) for offences u/s 498A, 34 of the IPC against the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

3. The case in a nutshell is that the private respondent is the legally wedded wife of the brother of petitioner No. 1, namely Parag Chelwani, and their marriage was solemnized in January 2015. Thereafter, according to the complainant, she was coerced and harassed for demands of dowry. However, from a perusal of the written complaint, it is apparent that only omnibus and vague allegations have been made. Despite this, an FIR under Sections 498A/34 IPC was registered against the petitioners, who are residing separately from the complainant’s husband and his family.

4. After registration of the FIR, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the competent court vide order dated

14.09.2023.

5.The charge-sheet was filed against the husband and the father-in-

law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent. In adherence to the settlement, the complainant herself moved an application under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) of the CrPC for compounding of the offence; however, since the offences are not compoundable in nature, the said application was rejected. The concerned proceedings, FIR, and charge-sheet are under challenge before this Hon’ble Court in a separate CRMP on the basis of compromise, at the behest of the husband and parents-in- law of the complainant. A copy of the agreement executed between the parties has been marked as Annexure P/3. A photostat copy of the agreement is being filed, as the original was filed in CRMP No. 3748/25 and now remains on the record of the said case. However, the fact of settlement can be confirmed from a perusal of the order sheets of the trial pending against the co-

accused.

6.It is pertinent to mention that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and, in furtherance thereof, the complainant herself is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners. Since the offence is purely of a private nature, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the same may kindly be quashed in view of the settlement.

7.The aforesaid compromise between the parties has taken place without any undue influence, threat, or coercion, and an agreement to that effect has been duly executed. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioners had filed a similar petition in CRMP No. 3748/25 for quashing, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition subject to payment of costs of INR 5,000/-, which has since been paid. Hence, this petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that t