1 2025:CGHC:15599-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1166 of 2025 Shashikant Chauhan S/o Bhanupratap Chauhan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jewridih, Thana-Pusor, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Ms.SS Subhashini D/o Soubhagya Ranjan Das Aged About 27 Years R/o C-44, Panchsheel Vihar, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.04 .2025 1. Heard Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.03 16:38:02 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and the offence registered u/s 69 & 338 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS_2023) against the F.I.R. no. 761/2024 dated 17/12/2024 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) and the subsequent chargesheet no. 40/2025 dated 25/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed in its entirety, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, in the year 2022, the complainant/respondent No.2 met with the petitioner/accused and soon they developed friendship with each other. On 27.11.2022, the petitionr called her to the ANS International Hotel, Raigarh and proposed her which she denied and it was alleged that he administered some substance in her cold drinks and recorded obscene videos and photographs, thereafter on multiple occasions, they have developed physical relations on false pretext of marriage. It is further case of the prosecution is that one day when the petitioner was in intoxicating condition, he told her that he is already married and have a 6 years child and when her wife came to know about the said fact, he harassed the victim and threatened her not to disclose their relationship in public. However, after passing of few months and after thought in act of rage, the private respondent filed a complaint on 18.12.2024 at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 69 & 338 Bhartiya Nyaya 3 Sanhita (BNS), 2023 bearing F.I.R. No.761/2024 and subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed on 25.02.2025. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner and complainant made effort to amicably settle the dispute and the misunderstanding that led to the filling of the FIR, which ultimately culminated in the parties reaching a compromise who have since buried the hatchet. The complainant keeping in mind the greater good in mind has most graciously been kind enough to agree not to pursue the proceedings pending against the petitioner any further and has agreed to terms of the settlement and compromise arrived between both the contesting parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 in MCRCA No.85/2025 observing that "the victim is a major lady and the FIR has been lodged with huge lapse of more than 02 years from the date of alleged incident, further the victim was a consenting party and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that the complainant has no objection.". She further submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e. the petitioner and private respondent No.2. 6. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any written compromise had taken place or not, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such written compromise had been taken place between the petitioner 4 and private respondent No.2. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/private respondent No.2 submits that a compromise had been taken place between the petitioner and the private respondent No.2. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the fact that the no written compromise had been taken place between the petitioner and private respondent No.2 and only on the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.2, we do not find any ground to quash the FIR bearing Crime No.761/2024 dated 17.12.2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) and subsequent charge-sheet dated 25.02.2025 of the aforesaid case against the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu