1 2025:CGHC:49132-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 357 of 2024 1 - Abhinandan Ramdayal Gupta S/o Ramdayal Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o Birla Compound, Akola, Tehsil And District Akola Maharashtra 2 - Harshal Gupta, S/o Ramdayal Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Birla Compound, Akola, Tehsil And District Akola Maharashtra 3 - Surbhi Harshal Gupta, W/o Harshal Gupata Aged About 38 Years R/o Birla Compound, Akola, Tehsil And District Akola Maharashtra 4 - Ramdayal Badriprasad Gupta S/o Late Badriprasad Gupta, Aged About 72 Years R/o Birla Compound, Akola, Tehsil And District Akola Maharashtra 5 - Sulekha Ramdayal Gupta W/o Ramdayal Badriprasad Gupta, Aged About 65 Years R/o Birla Compound, Akola, Tehsil And District Akola Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge Of PS Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shruti Gupta, W/oabhinandan Gupta, Aged About 36 Years R/o C/o Naryanprasad Gupta, R/o Padopara, Kargi Road Kota, Ps. Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.25 15:21:13 +0530 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.25 15:22:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1 / State. 2. As per office report dated 23.09.2025, notice has already been served to the respondent No.2, despite that, the respondent No. 2 has chosen not to appear in the matter either personally or through her counsel, hence notice is deemed sufficient to her, thus this Court proceeds to hear the matter finally as the matter pertains to the year 2019. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR, chargesheet bearing No.- 193/2019 arising out of criminal proceedings registered for offences punishable U/S 498-A, 313, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in PS Kota, Distt. Bilaspur and all the case registered as Session Trail No.- 103/2020 pending before the concerned Session Court, Bilaspur in view of compromise/ settlement arrived between the parties and taking into the fact that as per the FIR and chargesheet, no offence u/s 498-A, 313, r/w 34 of IPC 3 is made out against the present petitioners. Alternatively, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash FIR, chargesheet bearing No.- 193/2019 arising out of criminal proceedings registered for offences punishable U/S 498-A, 313, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in PS Kota, Distt. Bilaspur and all the case registered as Session Trail No.- 103/2020 pending before the concerned Session Court, Bilaspur on merits in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 4. Prosecution story in brief is that petitioner No. 1 and the complainant were married on 22nd February, 2011 according to Hindu rites and customs, and out of their wedlock, a daughter namely Somya was born on 3rd December, 2011. However, on account of misunderstandings and marital discord, the parties started living separately since the year 2019, which eventually gave rise to matrimonial disputes. In consequence thereof, petitioner No. 1 filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Akola, being H.M. Petition No. 10/2019, wherein both the parties mutually and unequivocally consented to dissolve their marriage. The learned Family Court, Akola, after due consideration, passed a decree of divorce on 21.12.2023. As per the terms and conditions of the mutual divorce decree, it was agreed between the parties that all pending litigations instituted by the complainant against the petitioners shall be withdrawn forthwith. In pursuance of the said settlement, the 4 complainant withdrew the maintenance proceedings pending before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, vide order dated 22.12.2023. It was further agreed in the settlement that the complainant would also withdraw the criminal case lodged against the petitioners and their family members under Sections 498-A, 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kota, Bilaspur, vide Crime No. 193/2019, which is pending as Sessions Trial No. 103/2020. Thus, from the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes by way of lawful settlement and compromise, and in view thereof, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not only be oppressive and prejudicial to the petitioners but would also amount to abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the very foundation of the present petition rests upon the amicable settlement duly arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, whereby all matrimonial disputes and ancillary issues have been comprehensively resolved. The said settlement was reduced into writing and placed before the learned Family Court, Akola, in H.M. Petition No. 10/2019, culminating in a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The terms of settlement cover all aspects, including custody, maintenance, and withdrawal of pending proceedings, thereby ensuring a clean break between the parties. It is urged that in the light of such compromise, continuation of the criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 103/2020 arising out of Crime No. 193/2019 registered at Police Station, Kota, Bilaspur, would serve no useful purpose and would instead perpetuate 5 hardship, harassment, and emotional distress to both sides, particularly to the minor child Somya, who deserves a peaceful environment free from prolonged litigation. 6. It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings, when the substratum of the dispute has already been amicably resolved, amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are clearly rooted in the erstwhile matrimonial discord which now stands amicably settled. Pursuing the trial under such circumstances would be both unjust and counterproductive. 7. Reliance is placed on the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is competent to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly those arising out of matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes stand on a distinct footing, and where the dispute is essentially private in nature and has been fully resolved between the parties, continuance of criminal prosecution is wholly unnecessary. In paragraph 61 of the judgment, the Court emphasized that in such matters, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Section 482 6 Cr.P.C. and bring an end to the proceedings. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in a catena of judgments thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have consistently quashed FIRs and criminal trials under Section 498-A IPC and related provisions on the basis of compromise entered into between the estranged spouses, recognizing that such disputes are predominantly personal in nature. In the present case too, the allegations are essentially matrimonial, arising solely from differences between husband and wife, and no larger public interest is involved. Both parties have consciously chosen to part ways and move forward in their lives without acrimony. 9. It is also submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the complaint was lodged belatedly and contains only omnibus, vague, and general allegations against the petitioners without specific attribution of roles or overt acts. The charge-sheet also fails to disclose any material sufficient to constitute the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under Section 313 IPC. Therefore, even otherwise, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 10. It is lastly submitted that in view of the comprehensive settlement, the possibility of conviction in the criminal trial is rendered extremely remote and bleak. Permitting such proceedings to continue would result only in unnecessary oppression and prejudice to the petitioners. Hence, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the FIR and consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 103/2020 deserve to be quashed by 7 this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material on record, including the copy of the mutual divorce decree dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Akola, the withdrawal order of the maintenance proceedings dated 22.12.2023, and the copy of the charge-sheet filed in Sessions Trial No. 103/2020. 13. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the present criminal proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has now been amicably resolved through a comprehensive settlement. Both parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, and the Family Court has granted a decree accordingly. The settlement encompasses withdrawal of all pending proceedings, including maintenance claims and the criminal case registered under Sections 498-A, 313 read with 34 IPC. 14. It is apparent that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only result in harassment, 8 oppression, and unnecessary mental agony to the petitioners, particularly in view of the fact that the parties have reached an amicable settlement and are desirous of moving forward in their lives. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), and in subsequent judgments, has consistently held that criminal proceedings having an overwhelmingly civil or private character, arising out of matrimonial disputes, can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly when the parties have amicably resolved their differences. The present case squarely falls within this principle. 16. Considering the facts, the nature of the dispute, the settlement reached between the parties, the absence of any prima facie material against the petitioners, and the settled legal position, this Court finds it just and proper to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of charge-sheet bearing No. 193/2019 registered at Police Station Kota, Bilaspur, pending as Sessions Trial No. 103/2020. 17. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners and their family members are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet