1 2025:CGHC:22427-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1708 of 2025 1 - Harpreet Singh Sandhu S/o Charanjeet Singh Sandhu Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 246, Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawanbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Daljeet Kaur Sandhu W/o Charanjeet Singh Sandhu Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 246, Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawanbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Charanjeet Singh S/o Lt. Shri Ram Singh Sandhu Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 246, Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawanbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Harvinder Kaur Sandhu D/o Shri Charanjeet Singh Sandhu Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 246, Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawanbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lovepreet Singh Sandhu S/o Charanjeet Singh Sandhu Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 246, Near Harish Petrol Pump, Rawanbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Sethi W/o Talwinder Singh Sethi Aged About 60 Years R/o 17/37 Kadambari Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) 2 - Smt. Komal Sandhu W/o Harpreet Singh Sandhu Aged About 32 Years R/o Rawabhata, Tehsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, and respondent No. 2- Smt. Komal Sandhu, who is appeared along with petitioner No.1- Harpreet Singh Sandhu who is the husband. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report(FIR) bearing No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh; the consequential proceedings, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2 and petitioners No. 2 to 3 6 are the family members of the petitioner No.1 and in-laws of the respondent No.2, and the identity of respondent No.2 has been verified by learned State Counsel through her Adhaar Card and there were matrimonial dispute between the parties and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 09.04.2025 before the Mediation Center of this Court. Copy of the Adhaar Card of respondent No.2 has also been annexed with this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre in connection with Anticipatory Bail Application being MCRCA No. 254/2025 and the report of the Mediation Centre indicates that a compromise has been arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, and both have expressed their willingness to resume their marital life, resolve all pending issues, and live together peacefully. 5. Respondent No.2, who is appeared along with petitioner No.1 who is the husband also admitted the said fact. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. 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, 4 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 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 5 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.” 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2 and petitioners No. 2 to 6 are the family members of the petitioner No.1 and in-laws of the respondent No.2, and the identity of respondent No.2 has been verified by learned State Counsel through her Adhaar Card and further, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre in connection with Anticipatory Bail Application being MCRCA No. 254/2025, and the report of the Mediation Centre indicates that a compromise has been arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, and both have expressed their willingness to resume their marital life, resolve all pending issues, and live together peacefully, resultantly, anticipatory bail has already been granted to petitioner No.1. Therefore, in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that this Court in 6 exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC can quash the F.I.R. as well as criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by means of compromise dated 09.04.2025 before the Mediation Centre of this Court. 9. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 85 read with 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioners, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 10. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan