1 2025:CGHC:28380-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 93 of 2025 Ankur Tiwari S/o Ramswaroop Tiwario, aged about 29 years R/o Oswal Colony, Gwarighat P.S. and Teh. Gwarighat, District- Jabalpur ( M.P. ) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer P.S.- Mahila Thana, Dist- Bilaspur ( C.G.). 2 - Smt. Priyanka Upadhyay (Tiwari) W/o- Shri- Ankur Tiwari, aged about 30 years R/o- C/o- Madhav Prasad, A/93, Police Colony, Tifra, P.S. Sirgitti Dist- Bilaspur ( C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 27.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 308/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is that, the marriage of the petitioner no.1 was solemnized with the respondent No.2 on 22.02.2019 and after marriage she resided with the petitioner only for 3 days from 23.02.2019 to 25.02.2019 and left her matrimonial house on 26.02.2019 by calling her parents and thereafter never went again to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur alleging that after coming to her matrimonial house on 26.02.2019 at 12:30 AM, her in-laws started demanding Rs. 5 lakh and a four wheeler as dowry, and have assaulted her and have tried to take signature of the complainant/respondent No.2 on blank paper as well as promissory note and have taken all her jewelries cloths even taken her Mangalsutra, and thrashed her out from the house. Despite having counseling by the Mahila Thana, the matter could not be resolved and ultimately on 11.06.2019, a written complaint was made by the complainant/respondent No.2, on which the FIR has been registered under Section 498 A/34 of IPC against all the petitioners. After completion of the 3 investigation, the police concerned has filed the Charge-sheet on 25.01.2020 before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) and thereafter it was got registered as Criminal Case No.- 308/2020. 4. On 26.07.2023 the petitioner and other accused of the case have moved a petition before the this Court seeking quashment of entire criminal proceeding pending against them, and the same was got registered as CrMP No. 1721/2023 and after service of the notice, the matter was forwarded to Mediation Centre of High Court and after conducting mediation the matter was again listed for hearing before the Court and after hearing the parties the this Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the proceeding in respect of other petitioners (except husband namely Ankur Tiwari). 5. On 04.11.2024, the complainant/respondent No. 02 has moved application under Section 320 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission of settlement. The copy of application under section 320 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, along with compromise agreement is collectively filed is filed here as Annexure P-4. 6. The learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence of the complainant and observed that the present matter is relating to Section- 498A of IPC and therefore permission to compromise is impermissible under the law and dismissed the same vide order dated 20.11.2024. Hence, this petition. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and the statement with regard to compromise has also been recorded and verified before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 13.01.2025. 8. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 also admitted the said fact. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: - “15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable 5 increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.” 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and statement with regard to compromise has also been recorded and verified before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 13.01.2025. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex 6 Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the criminal proceedings and the FIR as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by means of compromise dated 13.01.2025, which has been verified by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 12. In view of the same, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 308/2020 pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur arising out of Crime No. 23/2019 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra