1 2025:CGHC:59351-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3710 of 2025 1 - Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Ramashankar Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Girija Devi W/o Ramashankar Singh Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramashankar Singh S/o Late Murli Singh Aged About 80 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Ramshankar Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Sunita Singh W/o Pranav Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Sangeeta Singh W/o Amit Kumar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Albela Para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur 2 - Station House Officer Mahila Police Station Bhilai, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.09 10:37:33 +0530 2 3 - Smt. Nidhi Singh W/o Neeraj Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Quarter No. 294, Ward No. 59, Katul Board, Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents / State and Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and after hearing parties in the matter quash the Charge sheet filed in crime number no.31/2020 (Annexure P-1) for offence under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC, order of cognizance dated 03.11.2020 (Annexure P-2), order of framing charges dated 18.01.2023 along with memo of charges (Annexure P-3 Colly) and in effect quash 3 the entire criminal case pending before the JMFC, Durg bearing Sessions case number 5448/2020 on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, and/or pass such other orders in favor of the applicant as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein are invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS) seeking quashment of Charge sheet in pursuant to FIR bearing crime no.31/2020 filed against petitioners at Mahila Police Station, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) by which offence under sections 498A, 34 of IPC is registered and the petitioner is also challenging 03.11.2020, the order of cognizance order of dated dated framing charges 18.01.2023, memo of charges and consequences the entire criminal proceeding pending before the JMFC, Durg in Session case no.5448/2020 on the basis that the compromise has been taken places and the application for compromise has been filed same was before the trial court but the same has not been mentioned in the order- sheet of the learned trial Court and therefore the same has not been allowed by the learned trial Court and therefore necessity has arisen for invoking jurisdiction 528 of B.N.S.S of the quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceeding as the offences are of private in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present prosecution arises out of a purely matrimonial dispute wherein respondent No. 3 had lodged FIR No. 31/2020 alleging harassment and demand of dowry after her marriage with petitioner No. 1, however, 4 during the pendency of the criminal case, the parties have amicably resolved their differences and a lawful compromise has been entered into, which though filed before the trial Court, has not been properly reflected in the order-sheet. It is submitted that the compromise covers petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, that the alleged offences are private in nature, no injuries or serious allegations are borne out from the charge-sheet, and the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, invoking the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under Section 528 BNSS, it is prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, order of cognizance, and order framing charges be quashed in view of the voluntary compromise, particularly in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitting quashment of proceedings to secure the ends of justice when the dispute is personal and continuation of prosecution serves no purpose. Further, since a lawful compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, particularly when the dispute is purely of a private and personal nature. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is fully empowered to quash even non-compoundable offences on the basis of a genuine compromise, as has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. It is further urged that cordial and harmonious relations have now been restored between the parties, and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. 5 5. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. On a pointed query made by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for both sides regarding the existence of any written compromise, it has been fairly submitted that no formal written compromise has yet been executed between the parties and that the settlement arrived at is purely verbal and amicable in nature. In order to ensure that the compromise is duly recorded in accordance with law, both parties shall reduce the terms of settlement into a proper written compromise. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the intent of the parties to amicably resolve their dispute, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to place on record a duly executed legal compromise before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such compromise being filed, the learned trial Court shall verify the voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law within a further period of two weeks. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet