1 2025:CGHC:43887-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2494 of 2025 1 - Bhujendra Verma S/o Bhuwan Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Lolesra Ward No. 7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Rajkunwar Verma W/o Bhuwan Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Lolesra Ward No. 7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Bhuwan Verma S/o Sidhram Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Lolesra Ward No. 7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Dharmendra Verma S/o Bhuwan Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lolesra Ward No. 7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Bharti Verma W/o Dharmendra Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Lolesra Ward No. 7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Remin Verma W/o Sahdev Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Baiji, Ward No.7, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent of Police Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Bhuneshwari Verma W/o Bhujendra Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gaotiya Ward No. 22, Police Station Kotwali, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.01 11:08:46 +0530 2 __________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.08.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer :- “That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioners. II. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 170/2025 registered on 28-03-2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, Bemetara (C.G.) For the offences under section 498-A, 34 of IPC. III. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet No. 251/2025 filed on 21.06.2025 before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) offences under section 498-A, 34 of IPC. IV.That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the Criminal case no. 3800/2025 and impugned order dated 07-07- 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the learned court has taken cognizance of offences on the basis of impugned charge sheet and on 3 which the criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No. 3800/2025 is going on against the petitioners.” 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that owing to financial hardship, the petitioner No.1/husband, could not deposit the amount of 1,00,000/- before the Mediation Centre, in ₹ pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2025. 3. Considering the above submission of learned counsel that due to financial constraints petitioner No.1/husband was unable to deposit ₹1,00,000/-, this Court intends to reduce the amount to 50,000/- ₹ so as to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties. However, learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1/husband is not in a position to deposit even the reduced amount of 50,000/-. ₹ 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, and particularly considering that vide order dated 11.08.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 20.08.2025 and petitioner No.1/husband was also directed to deposit a sum of 1,00,000/- with the Mediation Centre, which amount was to be ₹ paid to respondent No.4/wife, but the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount, as a result of which the mediation proceedings could not be completed; and further, today, when this Court, taking into account the financial hardship of petitioner No.1/husband, wishes to reduce the amount to 50,000/-, she again submitted that even the ₹ said amount is too onerous for the petitioner No.1/husband. 5. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioners are not willing to deposit any amount before the Mediation Centre and are also not 4 ready to settle their dispute. Such conduct clearly reflects lack of bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner No.1/husband towards arriving at an amicable settlement. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage, as the petitioners are not ready to settle their dispute. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep