1 / 9 2025:CGHC:11946-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 118 of 2025 1 - Pramod Harishankra S/o H. Syamam Sundar Rao Aged About 34 Years R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana 2 - Shayam Sundar Rao S/o Late H. Ramprasad Rao Aged About 67 Years R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana 3 - Anuradha Harishankra W/o Syama Sundara Rao Aged About 57 Years R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal, Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Padmaja Harishankra W/o Pramod Harishankra Aged About 30 Years R/o Devrikhurd Housing Board Colony, Krishnanagar, Srinivas Nilayam, Ps Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Rashika Soni, Advocate Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 / 9 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 11/03/2025 1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No. 44 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), entire charge sheet, subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur bearing Case No. 10728 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “1. It is, respectfully prayed that the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner may kindly be called from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G), bearing case No. 10728/2024. 2. It is, respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the entire charge sheet and FIR bearing no. 44/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G), and subsequent initiation of criminal proceedings bearing criminal case No. 10728/2024 pending at court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G) may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. 3 / 9 3. Any other further order(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein. The marriage between complainant and the petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 10.01.2021 as per Hindu Rites and rituals at Bilaspur (C.G.). After marriage, the petitioner No.1 was working as IT Professional in Hyderabad and the complainant/respondent No. 2 was residing in matrimonial house along with petitioner No. 2 and 3 at Hyderabad. The respondent No. 2 made a written complaint, pursuant to which FIR dated 05.08.2024 was registered against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC against the petitioners at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur. As a result, investigation was carried out by the concerned Police Station and impugned charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), where the case is pending as Criminal Case No. 10728 of 2024. 4. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise and have settled the terms and conditions of compromise. The parties filed an application and prayed for mutual divorce and pursuant to the said application a compromise has been affected in between the parties. The contents of agreement executed between the parties on 24.02.2025 is reproduced 4 / 9 hereinunder: “1. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ . 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो उसे शि्ቌा संबंधी एवं अन्य दस्तावेज जो कि फोल्डर में उसे पास है उसे अपीलाቕኍ ं . 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो वापस रेगा । 2. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ ं . 1 े पास उ्ቈरवादी 2 े परिरवार े ्ቛारा उसे किववाह े समय सोने ा चेन, ्ቜेस्लेट एवं िሲरग है तቕኍा चांदी ा प्लेट, ग्लास, लोटा, दो दीया स्टेंड एवं चांदी ा ए वेिሣडग ाड2 एवं ए छोटा रूदा्ቌ है उसे अपीलाቕኍ ं . 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो वापस रेगा। 3. यह कि उ्ቈरवादी . 2 े पास अपीलाቕኍ े 1 ्ቛारा किदया गया सोने ा मंगलसू्ቔ है जिजसे उ्ቈरवादी 2 अपीलाቕኍ 1 ो वापस रेगी। 4. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ . 1 ्ቛारा उ्ቈरवादी ं . 2 े किवरूध 2nd Principal District and Session Judge, Cum Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri, District-Malkajgiri े न्यायालय में किववाह किवछेद ा आवेदन ्ቚस्तुत किया है जो कि FC OP No. 577/2024 े रूप में दज2 किया गया है उ्ሹ ्ቚरण में अपीलाቕኍ . 1 एवं उ्ቈरवादी . 2 आपसी सहमती े अधार पर किववाह किवछेद ा आवेदन आगामी पेी किदनां 21.03.2025 ो न्यायालय में उपቝኌस्ቕኍत होर ्ቚस्तुत रेगे तቕኍा आपसी सहमती े आधार पर किववाह किवछेद ा डिडी ्ቚा्቎ रेगे। 5. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ े . 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो उपरा्ሹ किववाह किवछेद े ्ቚरण े आगामी डितቕኍी 21.03.2025 ो उसे पास रखे हुये गोल्डन ्ቜेस्लेट, चांदी ा वेिሣडग ाड2 एवं 1 छोटा रू्ቖा्ቌ ो वापस रेगे जिजसे अपीलाቕኍ े 1 आज नहीं ला पाये इसी ्ቚार उ्ቈरवादी . 2 े पडे जिजसे अपीलाቕኍ े 1 े पास है उसे पेी किदनां ो उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो वापस र देगें। 6. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ े 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ो, परमानेट एलीमनी े रूप में 25,00,000/- (प्ሴीस लाख रूपये) अदा रेगा जिजसमें से वत2मान ्ቚरण में न्यायालीन आदे किदनां 13.01.2025 े परिरपालन में किदनां 27.01.2025 ो अदा किये गये 1,00,000/- (ए लाख रूपये) समायोजिजत होगें। 5 / 9 7. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ े 1 उ्ቈरवादी 2 ो उपरो्ሹ किववाह किवछेद े ्ቚरण में आपसी सहमती े अधार पर आवेदन ्ቚस्तुत रने े उपरान्त एवं किववाह किवच्छेद ी डिडी ्ቚा्቎ रने े पूव2 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 े बैं एाउट में 24,00,000/- (चौबीस लाख रूपय) परमानेंट एलीमनी े रूप में जमा रेगा। 8. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ े 1 आज किदनां ो अपने साቕኍ उ्ቈरवादी . 2 ा डिडा 1 में उलेखिखत फोल्डर एवं डिडा 2 में उलेखिखत सोने ा चेन, िሲरग एवं चांदी ा सामान लेर आया है जिजसे उ्ቈरवादी ो 2 ो आज किदनां 24.02.2025 ो ्ቚदान किया जिजसे उ्ቈरखादी . 2 ्ቚा्቎ र अपनी सहमती दी है। 9. यह कि उ्ቈरवादी े 2 आज किदनां 24.02.2025 ो अपने साቕኍ अपीलाቕኍ . 1 े ्ቛारा किदया गया मंगलसू्ቔ लेर आयी है जिजसे अपीलाቕኍ . 1 उ्ቈरवादी . 2 से ्ቚा्቎ र अपनी सहमती दी। 10. यह कि अपीलाቕኍ गण एवं उ्ቈरवादी . 2 भकिवष्य में ए-दूसरे े किवरूध किववाह एवं किववाह से संबंडिधत सामानो ो लेर ोई किववाद अቕኍवा दावा किसी भी न्यायालय में ्ቚस्तुत नहीं रेगा। 11. यह कि उ्ቈरवादी े 2 े ्ቛारा अपीलाቕኍ गणों े किवरूध जो शिायत एवं अपराडिध ्ቚरण े 10728/2024 लकिबत है उस पर आपसी सहमती से किववाह किवछेद डिडी (जो कि डिडा 7 में उलेखिखत रम ी ्ቚाकि्቎ े उपरान्त किनቓኌणत होगी) उसे उपरान्त किसी भी ्ቚार ी ोई ाय2वाही नही चाहती है और उ्ሹ ्ቚरण समा्቎ एवं किनरत रने पर उसे ोई आपडित नहीं है। उभयप्ቌ इस समझौता प्ቔ ी तQ से सहमत है एवं पालन े खिलए किटब्ቍ है समझौता प्ቔ में दी गई तQ ो उन्होंने अपनी स्वयं ी स्वेच्छापूव2 सहमडित एवं किबना किसी दबाव, भय एवं लालच े स्वीार किया गया है उभयप्ቌ ने इस समझौता प्ቔ ी तQ ो पढ़ने व समझने े प्ቐात् अपनी स्वतं्ቔ सहमडित से परस्पर ए-दूसरे ी उपቝኌस्ቕኍडित में हस्ता्ቌर र किनष्पाकिदत किया।" 5. Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing further 6 / 9 proceeding in the FIR as the parties have already entered into compromise. 6. In view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. 7. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would 7 / 9 depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not 8 / 9 quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, has been held as under;- “29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation..…” 9. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction 9 / 9 therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 10. In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 11. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire charge sheet and FIR of Crime No. 44 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G) as well as all further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 10728/2024 pending at Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) stands quashed against the petitioners (Petitioner No. 1 Pramod Harishankra, Petitioner No. 2 Shayam Sundar Rao, Petitioner No. 3 Anuradha Harishankra) who are the accused persons in that case. 12. The present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved