1 2025:CGHC:19727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1540 of 2018 1 - Vinod Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Vilas Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o- Quarter No. 1/C-20 Colony, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Avinash Kumar Singh S/o Vinod Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o- Quarter No. 1/C-20 Colony, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Poonam Rana W/o Kunal Gautam Aged About 32 Years R/o- Quarter No. 1/C-20 Colony, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Shanti Singh W/o Vinod Kumar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o- Quarter No. 1/C-20 Colony, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Another Through- S.H.O. Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naina Singh W/o Avinash Singh R/o House No. 34, Krishna Nagar, Near Railway Station Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State, as well as Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the Criminal Case No. 2450/2017 pending before learned C.J.M., District – Surajpur (C.G.), and FIR registered at the Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 197/2017. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant namely Naina Singh made a written report dated 24.05.2017 at the Mahila Thana Raipur for offence under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stating that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the petitioner No.2 was arranged through a social site shadi.com, and thereafter a demand of dowry of Rs. 25 lacks was made by the petitioner No.1 and 4, which was later on suppressed by the petitioner No. 2 and marriage was solemnized in Temple at Mumbai on 24.08.2015 and thereafter after disclosing this fact to their parents Marriage was again solemnized at Sunita Park Raipur on 16.02.2016, thereafter, the in- 3 laws used to mentally harass her used filthy language and taunting her about the way she conducted marriage with their son, thereafter the petitioner No. 2 took her to Japan where he was posted as Project Engineer at TCS Company, later on she was sent back and the her in-laws also use to provoke her husband against for not making any sexual relation with her, later on she was left back her in matrimonial house on 28.02.2017 and her all the gifts and streedhan were captured by her in-laws it was also alleged that the petitioner No. 4 who is the sister of her husband living at Banglore also use to provoke petitioner No.2 against the complainant, and thereafter the Police without conducting any enquiry and without following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in registered an F.I.R. dated 12.09.2017 at Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur (C.G) bearing Crime no. 197/2017 against the petitioners alleging the commission of offences under the above mentioned sections of I.P.C. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent had preferred a Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2023, (Arising from SLP (Civil) No. 18014 of 2021) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the matter has been settled between the parties, and the divorce has also taken place, as a settlement agreement dated 17.05.2022 has been executed between the parties which is mentioned in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 6th April, 2023, and the copy of the same has also been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record. Hence, the Criminal Case No. 2450/2017 pending before CJM, Surajpur, 4 District – Surajpur (C.G.) and the FIR registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 197/2017 must be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 also submits that the private respondent had preferred a Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2023, (Arising from SLP (Civil) No. 18014 of 2021) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the matter has been settled between the parties and the settlement agreement has also been executed between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the private respondent had preferred a Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2023, (Arising from SLP (Civil) No. 18014 of 2021) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the matter has been settled between the parties, and the divorce has also taken place, as a settlement agreement dated 17.05.2022 has been executed between the parties which is mentioned in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 6th April, 2023, and the copy of the same has also been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record, thus, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under 5 Section 482 of the CrPC. the Criminal Case No. 2450/2017 pending before CJM, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) and the FIR registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 197/2017, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar