1 2025:CGHC:55275-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3416 of 2025 1 - Mohit Mahendra Agrawal S/o Mahendra Agrawal Aged About 35 Years 2 - Smt. Manju Agrawal W/o Mahendra Agrawal Aged About 57 Years 3 - Mahendra Agrawal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged About 61 Years 4 - Bharat Agrawal S/o Mahendra Agrawal Aged About 32 Years All R/o 1007 Nowa, A Aakriti, Niharika Complex Sai Badi, E.P.S. Andheri East Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Raigarh Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shristi Agrawal D/o Shivkumar Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Kewadabadi, Bus Stand, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528 BNSS the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned first information report (F.I.R.) No. 197/2021 registered at Police Station Raigarh Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) dated 11/02/2021 for offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire Chargesheet no. 877 filed on 24/07/2021 for offences under section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated 07/09/2023 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class 3 Raigarh (C.G.) iv. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 916/2023 State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohit Mahendra Agrawal & Others pending for consideration before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh on the basis of compromise between the parties, in the interest of justice v. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order dated 10/09/2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh in Criminal Case No Criminal Case No. 916/2023 State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohit Mahendra Agrawal & Others, in the interest of justice” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the complainant/respondent No.2-Shristi Agrawal and applicant No. 1- Mohit Mahendra Agrawal was solemnized on 07.12.2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals. On 11.02.2021, the complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Raigarh Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.), alleging that soon after her marriage, while residing in Mumbai, her in-laws mentally harassed her over household matters and customs. It was also alleged that the petitioners taunted her for not knowing how to cook. Based on the said complaint, an offence under Sections 498-A/323 IPC was 4 registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 197/2021 at Police Station Raigarh Kotwali. After filing of the charge sheet, Criminal Case No. 916/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mohit Mahendra Agrawal & Others) was registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. 4. During pendency of the case, the parties amicably settled their disputes. Both the parties jointly filed an application under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences under Sections 498- A/34 and 323 IPC. Vide order dated 10.09.2025, learned trial Court allowed compounding of offence under Section 323 IPC only (Annexure A-2). 5. Subsequently, on 08.09.2025, the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and Civil Suit No. 198A/2025 was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2025, dissolving the marriage after one-time settlement (Annexure A-3). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties admitted that compromise has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and they have settled their dispute amicably outside of the Court and on 08.09.2025, the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and Civil Suit No. 198A/2025 was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2025, dissolving the marriage after one-time settlement 5 (Annexure A-3). Therefore, Criminal Case No. 916/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC may be quashed. 7. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “61. 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 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 6 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 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. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 8. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 7 criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3 has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 10. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 11. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably outside of the Court and respondent No.2 does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.916 of 2023. 12. In view of above, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.916 of 2023 arising out of the FIR registered in Crime No.197/2021 at Police Station Raigarh Kotwali and 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 8 consequential charge-sheet for offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu