1 2025:CGHC:19525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1461 of 2025 1. Ankur Band S/o S.K Band Aged About 26 Years R/o 22/10, Nehru Nagar, Near Agrasen Chowk Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Vishal Vishwakarma S/o B.D. Vishwakarma Aged About 27 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Near Agrasen Chowk Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Superintendent of Police District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Station House OfÏcer Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. XYZ Complainant Nil ...Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.30 18:22:01 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and after hearing parties in the matter quash the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 663 of 2022 (Annexure P/1) and order of cognizance dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P/2) and in effect quash the criminal case pending before the JMFC bearing Criminal Case No. 18099 of 2022 on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, and/or pass such other orders in favour of the applicant as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is working in the post of General Manager and petitioner No. 2 is working in the post of Marketing head in company named U.K. Concept Designer, having its registered address at 4th Floor, Shop no. 441 at Magneto Mall Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He also submits that the respondent No. 4/ complainant is also working in the post of Client Relationship Manager in the above-mentioned ofÏce since 27.05.2022. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19.10.2022, a complaint has been with regard to the incidence of May, 2022 to 07.10.2022 that the petitioners and other person used to abused 3 the complainant and has also touched her and thereby outraged her modesty and on that basis, the FIR bearing Crime No. 663 of 2022 has been registered at respondent No. 3/Police Station Telibandha and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and 2 other person for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that after filing of the charge-sheet, the melodious relationship established between the petitioners and the complainant, and therefore, compromise deed has been executed between the parties i.e. petitioners and the complainant on 17.01.2025 and thereafter, an application under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has also been filed before the learned trial Court seeking permission to compromise and on that basis the learned trial Court has allowed the said application partly and the offences which are compoundable has been permitted to compromised and acquitted the petitioners from the offences under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and the remaining offence i.e. Section 354 of the IPC as non-compoundable the same has been not permitted. The copy of compromise agreement is annexed as Annexure P/3 and the copy of application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. is annexed as Annexure P/4. He would submit that the petitioners are invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the remaining offence under Section 354 of the IPC on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel concurs the the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to 6 continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in afÏrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Another.2 has held as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 7 of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 9. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Another3 has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 10. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably outside of the Court and respondent No. 2 does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 18099 of 2022. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 18099 of 2022 Case No. 1345 of 2020 as well as charge-sheet bearing No. 638 of 2022 dated 04.12.2022 in pursuant to 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 8 FIR bearing Crime No. 0663 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022 against the petitioners are hereby quashed. They are acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of the IPC. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan