1 2025:CGHC:40774-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1962 of 2025 1 - Sakib Ansari S/o Faiz Ansari Aged About 34 Years 2 - Faiz Ansari S/o Late Rahmat Alam Ansari Aged About 58 Years 3 - Shahin Parvin W/o Faiz Ansari Aged About 48 Years 4 - Rukhsar Aroshi W/o Sheikh Ayaz Aged About 30 Years Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are resident of B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5 - Samrin Aroshi W/o Md. Masum Raza Aged About 32 Years R/o B-239, Behind Taj Squad Public School, Near Kilbriya Masjid, Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, Ranchi Police Station Lower Bazar, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Presently R/o Quarter No. 735/b, Azad Nagar, Siwandih, Bokaro, Near Idgah Maidan, Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Mahila Thana Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Reshma Parvin W/o Sakib Ansari Aged About 33 Years R/o Millantnagar, Near Maruti Suzuki Service Centre, Kharsiyanaka, Police Station Kotwali, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Waqar Naiyer, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/08/2025 1. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioners seek for the following relief(s): “i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 32/2024 registered against the petitioners at Mahila Thana Ambikapur (Sarguja), District Ambikapur (Surguja) Chhattisgarh; ii. The consequential charge sheet bearing No. 35/2024 dated 23.12.2024 filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; iii. The order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet alongwith all consequential orders arising therefrom; iv. The order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, framing charges against the petitioners; v. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6628/2024 titled ‘State of Chhattisgarh v. Sakib Ansari and others’, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.” 2. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Waqar Naiyer, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the marriage 3 between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 15.11.2021 at village Mandu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand according to Muslim rituals. However, since some dispute arose between the parties, their relationship became strain and as such a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 04.11.2024 before the Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja upon which an FIR bearing Crime No. 0032/2024 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the High Court Mediation Centre on 10.07.2025 to explore the possibilities of amicable settlement. However, on the next date of hearing on 16.07.2025, as it was reported that no settlement could be arrived at, further chance was granted and the parties had appeared for mediation on 05.08.2025. It is submitted by Mr. Pandey, that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by way of a compromise dated 11.08.2025 and as such, the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings may be quashed as no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State : (2008) 16 SCC 1, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others : 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the other side do not controvert the above submission and submits that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and resolved their dispute and that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have agreed to live jointly alongwith their minor daughter. 4 6. From perusal of the mediation report, it transpires that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, in terms and conditions as mentioned in the settlement/agreement dated 11.08.2025 and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma (supra), B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) and also taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings have emanated has been amicably settled before the Mediation Centre of this Court vide settlement/agreement dated 11.08.2025 and the parties have agreed to abide the said settlement/agreement, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioners in this matter. 7. Two of the conditions i.e. clause E and F of the agreement dated 11.08.2025 agreed between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 is that the Criminal Case No. 6628/2024 pending before the learned JMFC, Ambikapur would remain pending during cooling period of six months and after the cooling period of six month, the respondent No. 2 shall withdraw all the aforesaid pending cases, and if disputes still arise later, then it shall be redressed as per para 7(C) and only after that, both the parties shall be free to approach Hon’ble Courts for redressal of their grievances, appears to be infeasible. When the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have agreed to reside together alongwith their minor daughter, such condition would further make their relationship sour and frustrate the purpose of mediation and further, the criminal proceedings cannot be kept pending at the sweet will of the parties. It has to be brought to a logical conclusion. As such, we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings, being Criminal Case No. 6628/2024 also at this stage, reserving liberty to the parties to take recourse to appropriate forum, if occasion arises. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 32/2024 5 dated 04.11.2024 registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja, the charge sheet bearing No. 35/2024, dated 23.12.2024, for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the order dated 31.12.2024 taking cognizance of the said charge sheet alongwith all consequential orders arising therefrom and the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja, framing charges against the petitioners as also the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 6628/2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja, are quashed, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed. 9. Consequently, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 14:03:56 +0530