1 2025:CGHC:22253-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1703 of 2025 Avinash Netam S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Netam Aged About 37 Years R/o Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Ward, Sawrapara, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Frazerpur, Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2. X (Particulars of the respondent is given in a sealed envelope attached with the petition) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.05.22 15:10:48 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “(i) To quash the FIR No. 105 of 2023 (Annexure P/1), registered at Police Station Frezarpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (ii) To quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P/6), passed in unregistered case pending before the learned CJM, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in unregistered case of ‘State v. Dr. Avinash Netam.’ (iii) To quash the proceedings in the unregistered case of ‘State v. Dr. Avinash Netam’ pending the Court of learned CJM, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.). (iv) To grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. On 20.05.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Doctor and the private respondent No.2 is working as a Staff Nurse and they both are presently posted at the Government Medical College, Dimrapal, Bastar, District-Bastar. He further 3 submits that on 10.12.2021, their marriage was solemnized as per the social rituals and immediately after the marriage, the differences arose between them and as such, private respondent No.2, lodged an FIR against the petitioner for alleged commission of offences under section 376-B, 294 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, on 10.01.2024, the petitioner and private respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Meanwhile, on the basis of investigation, the police authorities submitted a closure report in the FIR bearing Crime No.105/2023. He also submits that on 10.06.2024, the statement of Investigation Officer was recorded and he stated that during investigation, it was found that the private respondent No.2 has lodged a false report against the present petitioner as well as the private respondent No.2, in her statement, submitted that she is satisfied with the investigation and she has no objection to the closure report filed by the police authorities. It has been contended that on 24.10.2024, private respondent No.2 submitted her statement in the form of affidavit before the Family Court and submitted that she has given approval to the closure report pending before the learned Magistrate and in future, 4 she did not want to pursue the case pending before the learned Magistrate for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against her husband i.e. the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has also submitted his affidavit and recorded his statement before the Family Court and based on the deposition of the parties, the learned Family Court vide its judgment dated 11.11.2024, annulled the marriage of present petitioner and private respondent No.2 and accordingly passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It has been further contended that after grant of decree of divorce, the case came up for hearing before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 02.05.2025 rejected the closure report filed by the police authorities observing that the offence alleged to have been committed is serious in nature and the same are not compoundable, as such, he prays that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.105/2023 registered at Police Station Frezarpur, District Bastar as well as the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur bearing Civil Suit No.04A/2024, be quashed. Learned State counsel concurs the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the submissions advanced by 5 learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 22.05.2025 in order to enable the private respondent No.2 to appear in person or through the counsel for her choice physically or virtually, if she wishes. List the case on 22.05.2025. Learned State counsel shall communicate this order to the private respondent No.2 for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. In view of the above, I.A. No.02, application for urgent hearing during summer vacation stands disposed of.” 4. Today, respondent No. 2 is present before this Court through video conferencing and she is identified by her counsel Mr. Rajendra Jhajj, who also appears through video conferencing. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed I.A. No. 3 of 2025, which is an application for taking document on record. 6. On due consideration of the grounds mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed. The documents are taken on record. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 105 of 2023, registered at Police Station Frezarpur, District Bastar (C.G.) and has further sought quashing of impugned order dated 02.05.2025, passed in unregistered case pending before the learned CJM, Bastar Place Jagdalpur and the proceedings pending in unregistered case of ‘State vs. 6 Dr. Avinash Netam’. He further submits that it an admitted position that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner during the subsistence of marriage and the respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that she did not have any objection against the closure report. Even in the closure report, it is specifically reported that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the proceedings before the Family Court, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 towards the final settlement. The petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lakhs were required to be paid at the time of acceptance of closure report by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected the closure report, therefore, the remaining amount was not paid to the respondent No. 2. He further stated that in order to show the bonafide and his willingness, the petitioner is paying the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent No. 2, through a cheque No. 492460 of Punjab National Bank, dated 22.05.2205, drawn in favour of respondent No. 2. Photocopy of the cheque No. 492460 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/8. He also submits that the petitioner is also present before this Court with the original cheque. 9. On querry being made to the respondent No. 2 whether they (petitioner and respondent No. 2) amicably settled their dispute or not, to which she accepts that they have amicably settled their dispute and she has no objection if the proceedings are quashed in view of the settlement arrived between the parties. 7 10. Taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioner in this matter. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 105 of 2023 registered at Police Station – Frezarpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376-B, 204 and 323 of the IPC and the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed in unregistered case pending before the learned CJM, Bastar Place Jagdalpur and the proceedings in unregistered case of ‘State vs. Dr. Avinash Netam’ against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 13. The petitioner is directed to hand over the original cheque No. 492460 of Punjab National Bank, dated 22.05.2025, drawn in favour of respondent No. 2 in the Registry of this Court today itself and the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to approach this Court and filed appropriate application for handing over the cheque to her. 14. It is further made clear that the proceedings have been quashed against the petitioner subject to the encashment of the cheque. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan