1 2025:CGHC:32196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2855 of 2023 1 - Gholam Ghousul Azam (Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Gulam Gosul Azam), S/o Shaukat Ali Ahmed, Aged About 36 Years R/o 15/a Flat No. 1, Contopher Tati Bagan, Bail Maszid, Ward No. 54, Kolkata -46 (West Bengal) (Currently Residing At F-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Naga, -1, New Delhi -110024 2 - Shaukat Ali Ahmed, S/o Late Hazi Mohammed Gulam Rasool Rai, Aged About 74 Years R/o 15/a Flat No. 1, Contopher Tati Bagan, Bail Maszid, Ward No. 54, Kolkata -46 (West Bengal) (Currently Residing At F-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Naga, -1, New Delhi -110024 3 - Smt. Shaukat Tabassum W/o Shaukat Ali Ahmed, Aged About 64 Years R/o 15/a Flat No. 1, Contopher Tati Bagan, Bail Maszid, Ward No. 54, Kolkata -46 (West Bengal) (Currently Residing At F-14, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Naga, -1, New Delhi -110024 4 - Shahid Anwar @ Annu, S/o Iliyas Shahid, Aged About 53 Years R/o 12 Gorachand Lane, 14 Kolkata (West Bengal) 5 - Smt. Shagufta Yasmin, W/o Sheikh Sanaullah, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Holid No. 125, Bhawanipur, Kharagpur, Kolkata (West Bengal) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Zobia Khan , W/ Gulam Gosul Azam, Aged About 28 Years R/o Gaffar Colony, Chhaoni, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.11 17:00:28 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.07 .2025 1. Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. When the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mo. Rasik and Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have not appeared despite repeated calls and no report has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may quash/set aside the impugned FIR dated 15.06.2017 relating to Crime No. 328/2017 registered at P.S. Jamul, Dist. Durg (C.G.) u/S. 498-A/34 of IPC r/w S. 4 of Dowry 3 Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicants and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 33412/2018 before the learned trial Court of J.M.F.C., Durg (C.G.) (presided by Ku. Deepa Suchita Tirki) including its consequences (if any) and may set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 118/2023 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and the impugned order/charge dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court of JMFC Durg in Criminal Case No. 33412/2018, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case, are that, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the respondent No.2/complainant on 27.12.2015 as per Muslim religion at Bhilai District Durg without any dowry. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are father and mother of the petitioner No.1, respectively whereas the petitioner No.4 is brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5 is sister of the petitioner No.1, respectively. Since 30.09.2016, the complainant was not living with the petitioner No.1 when she was brought back to Bhilai by her Mama and she took her entire jewelry back and also the jewelry given by the petitioner No.1. Under such circumstance, petitioner No.1 sent the notices of Talaq through Kazi to the respondent No.2/ complainant dated 16.12.2017 and 04.01.2018 as well as sent the information of three Talaq executed before Notary to the respondent No.2/complainant dated 09.02.2018, 11.05.2018 and 11.06.2018. 4 Both the parties have accepted the Talaq between them and have remarried. The complainant has remarried in January 2020 and having two children and the petitioner No.1 has also remarried on 09.12.2020 and having two children. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties i.e. petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have accepted divorce/Talaq and have remarried and are happy with their respective new spouses, thus the impugned FIR is a result of mala-fide and has been lodged with intention to harass the petitioners to put pressure upon them to succumb to the illegal pressure being put by the complainant upon the petitioners, thus the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed/set aside. He further submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings out of the impugned FIR against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law. 6. It has been argued that in the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into an amicable settlement without any coercion or collusion and have decided to resolve all the disputes pending amongst them. The parties are no more interested to proceed with criminal proceedings. Since, the alleged offence is compoundable with permission of the Court, therefore, this petition is being preferred seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged offence on the basis of voluntary and amicable settlement between them and further seeking quashment of the impugned FIR. 5 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned FIR dated 15.06.2017 bearing Crime No. 328/2017 registered at P.S. Jamul, Dist. Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners as well as entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 33412/2018 pending before the learned trial Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), deserve to be quashed. It has been further contended that it would also be proper to set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 118/2023 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety as also the submissions advance by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that both the parties i.e. petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have accepted the Talaq and have subsequently remarried. Respondent No.2/complainant remarried in January 2020 and is now the mother of two children. Similarly, petitioner No.1 was remarried on 09.12.2020 and is the father of two children, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in 6 proceeding any further in the matter against the petitioners. 11. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.118/2023 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, impugned order/charge dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Complaint Case No.33412/2018, impugned First Information Report dated 15.06.2017 bearing Crime No.328/2017 registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg (C.G.) lodged by the complainant/ respondent No.2 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as the entire proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), are hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed . There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu