1 2025:CGHC:19797-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1485 of 2025 1. Swapnil Gawhane S/o Shri Omprakash Gawhane Aged About 35 Years Resident of Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station Ramtek, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 2. Omprakash Gawhane S/o Late Shobharam Gawhane Aged About 67 Years Resident of Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station Ramtek, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 3. Neeta Gawhane W/o Shri Omprakash Gawhane Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station Ramtek, District Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg- Bhilai, (C.G.) 2. Smt. Amisha Gawhane W/o Swapnil Gawhane Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 4/12, Ispatnagar, Rishali, Bhilai, Thana- Newai, District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.05.02 18:39:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “i. Set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the JMFC, Durg (C.G.), rejecting the compromise application. ii. Quash the charge-sheet No. 51 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 cognizance order of the impugned charge- sheet dated 29.12.2020 and the charge framed on 05.03.2021 and all consequential proceedings in FIR No. 20 of 2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), registered as Criminal Case No. RCC 8153/2020 under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. Iii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Criminal Case No. RCC 8153/2020 under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg, Bhilai-Durg, C.G., District Durg (C.G.), titled as ‘State of 3 Chhattisgarh vs. Swapnil Gawhane & Others’ currently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) iv. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the applicants.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the criminal case, both the parties have filed an application under Section 320 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence stating inter-alia that they have settled their dispute amicably outside of the Court, therefore, criminal case be dropped. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that offence under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to direct for compounding of the offence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties admitted that compromise has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2 on 19.03.2025 and they have settled their dispute amicably outside of the Court and divorce has taken place between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No. 2/wife and as such, she does not want to continue with the criminal case and has compromised the case without any fear, undue influence or any pressure. Therefore, the criminal case bearing Criminal Case No. RCC 8153 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) be quashed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the settlement agreement dated 19.03.2025, which has been 4 executed between parties i.e. the petitioners and the respondent No.2 at paragraph 12 of the agreement, it is stated that “in view of the instant settlement agreement party No. 1 had agreed to pay to to the party No. 4 a settlement amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of Bank Demand Draft towards all her claim (past, present and future) for maintenance, stridhan, residence etc., at the time of hearing in the presence of Hon’ble Judge in High Court.” (Copy of the agreement has been enclosed as Annexure P/10.) 7. In the opinion of this Court, the averments which have been made in paragraph 12 of the agreement is highly deprecated as no party can executed such an agreement on its own terms stating that the payment would be made before the Court, especially before the High Court, as the High Court has not directed for any mediation nor any permission was sought by the parties from this Court before executing the agreement. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the parties to file a fresh petition annexing an agreement for settlement of their dispute containing proper terms and conditions in accordance with law, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be borne equally by both the parties i.e. Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioners as well as Rs.25,000/- by the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from today which shall be transmitted to the Government School for Visually & Hearing Impaired, Raipur, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan