1 2025:CGHC:20541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1448 of 2025 1 - Neeraj Doknia S/o Dr. Sajan Kumar Doknia, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vishwanath Nursing Home, Chirayya Ghat Road Barmasia, Giridih Police Station Giridih, District : Giridih, Jharkhand 2 - Dr. Sajan Kumar Doknia S/o Vishwanath Doknia, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Vishwanath Nursing Home, Chirayya Ghat Road Barmasia, Giridih Police Station Giridih, District : Giridih, Jharkhand 3 - Usha Doknia W/o Dr. Sajan Kumar Doknia, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vishwanath Nursing Home, Chirayya Ghat Road Barmasia,giridih Police Station Giridih, District : Giridih, Jharkhand ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station, Mahila Thana Durg, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dr. Pooja Doknia W/o Dr. Neeraj Doknia, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dr. Prabhat Pandey, House No. 14, Anand Nagar, Utai Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg Complainant, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Siddarth Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 05- 05-2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 preferred by the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the Respondent No. 2/ complainant, seeking for quashment of the proceeding of Criminal Case No.RCC/14155/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Dist- Durg (CG) and also to set aside the order dated 25-02-2025 passed by the learned trial Court so far as it relates to rejection of quashment of offence under Section 498A, 34 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 Dr. Pooja Doknia whose marriage has been solemnized on 16-06-2021 as per their rites and rituals. The petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the in laws of the complainant/respondent No.2. After some time of marriage, dispute arose between the parties and on 17-06-2022 the respondent No 2/ complainant has lodged an FIR against the present petitioners for harassment. The present FIR as Crime No. 55/2022 for the offence under Sections 498A, 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners on the complaint made by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 at police station- Mahila Thana, Durg (CG). After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed before the learned trial Court against the petitioners where Criminal Case No.RCC/14155/2022 has been registered and the proceeding is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, Distt.- Durg (CG). 3. During the pendency of the said criminal case, this Court the parties explored the possibility to settle their dispute and they settled the same. They have also settled the terms and conditions of their compromise and executed a mutual deed of settlement on 25-09-2024. 4. In the proceeding of the criminal case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Durg the parties have moved their application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offence. While considering the 3 application the learned trial Court has permitted to compound the offence with respect to Section 406 of the IPC only, but has rejected the application with respect to offence under Section 498A, 34 of the IPC as the same is non-compoundable. The learned trial Court has rejected the application vide its order dated 22-02-2025 which is under challenge in the present petition. 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 criminal proceeding pending for commission of offence under Section 498A of IPC in Criminal Case No.14155/2022 as the parties have already entered into compromise. 6. The conditions of compromise is necessary to reproduce here for consideration which is as below:- “AA jkthukek dh 'krsZaAA 01- ;g fd] izFke i{kdkj ,ao f}rh; i{kdkj fnukad dks ekuuh; iz/kku U;k;k/kh’k dqVqEc U;k;ky; nqxZ ds le{k vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn dh vkKfIr izkIr djus gsrq fof/kor vkosnu izLrqr djsaxs rFkk blesa dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj dksbZ fo/u] ck/kk ;k vM+pu mRiUu ugha djsxk A 02- ;g fd] ;g fd] f}rh; i{kdkj] izFke i{kdkj dks ,deq’r Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf’k ds Hkqxrku isVs dqy 50]00]000@& :i;s iznku djsxk] ftlesa ls 50 izfr’kr dh jkf’k vFkkZr 25]00]000@& :i;s uxn f}rh; i{kdkj] izFke i{kdkj dks nks xokg ds le{k vkt fnukad 25@09@2024 dks iznku dj fn;k gS] ftldh vfHkLod`fr izFke i{kdkj bl bl jkthukek esa nsrk gSaA LFkk;h Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh vo’ks"k jkf’k jkf’k :0] 25]00]000@& (v{kjh ek= iPphl yk[k :0) vkosnd @ i{kdkj dza0 2] vkosfndk@i{kdkj dza0 1] dks cSd Mh-Mh- ds ek/;e ls fookg foPNsn ds izdj.k esa vkosfndk@i{kdkj dz-1 ds vafre C;ku ds iwoZ izFke i{kdkj dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k vnk djsxkA 03- ;g fd] ;g fd] vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn ;kfpdk ekuuh; dqaVqEc U;k;ky; nqxZ ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus ds i’pkr ,oa foPNsn ds izdj.k esa mHk; i{kks ds ck;u ds iwoZ mHk; i{k ,d nwljs ds fo:) ,oa muds ifjokj ds vU; lnL;ksa ds fo#) yfEcr leLr izdj.k dks fof/kor okil lekIr djsxkA blh dze esa f}rh; i{kdkj fxjhMhg >kj[kaM esa izFke i{kdkj rFkk mlds firk MkW- izHkkr ik.Ms; ds 4 fo:) yafcr vkijkf/kd iz- dz- 2905@2022 dks okil ysxk@lekIr djsxk mlh fnu gh izFke i{kdkj] f}rh; i{kdkj ds fo:} ,oa mlds ifjokj ds fo:} fopkjkf/ku izdkj.k (fofo/k iz- dz- 253@2022 ?kjsyq fgalk ls efgykvksa dk laj{k.k ckcr vf/kfu;e) dks okil ysus ,oa lekIr djsus gsrq vkosnu ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsxh ,ao izdkj.k dkss okil@LkekIr dkjsxhA blh dze esa gh izFke i{kdkj vius O;; ls] f)rh; i{kdkj ,oa mlds ifjokjtu ds fo:) ekuuh; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh] nqxZ (Jherh ljkstuh tukknZu [kjs) ds U;k;ky; esa yafcr /kkjk 498&, 34 Hkk-n-l- ds vkijkf/kd iz-dz- 14155@22 dks lekIr djkus ckcr ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k jkthukek vkosnu izLrqr djsxh] ftls ekuuh; U;k;ky; )kjk fujLr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa mHk; i{kdkj mDr izdj.k dks lekIr djkus gsrq ekuuh; mOp U;k;ky; fcykliqj ds le{k la;qDr :i ls ;kfpdk izLrqr djsxsa rFkk blesa dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ ghyk&gokyk ugha djsaxsa vkSj mDr dk;Zokgh mHk; i{kdkjku vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn dh vkKfIr izkIr djus ds iwoZ laikfnr djsaxsa A 04- ;g fd] f}rh; i{kdkj us izFke i{kdkj ds fo#} tks fookg foPNsn dh ;kfpdk izLrqr fd;k gS] tks fd orZeku esa U;k;ky; ekuuh; r`rh; vfr- iz/kku U;k;k/kh’k dqVqEc U;k;ky; nqxZ ds U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS] ftldk O;ogkj okn dz 116@2024 is’kh fnukad 26@09@2024 gS] dks f}rh; i{kdkj vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn dk vkosnu izLrqr djus ds iwoZ lekIr djkosxkA 05- ;g fd] izFke i{kdkj ,oa f}rh; i{kdkj vkilh lgefr ls fookg foPNsn dh vkKfIr izkIr djus ds i’pkr viuk&viuk fookg djus gsrq Lora= gksaxs] ijUrq fdlh Hkh nwljs i{kdkj ds gksus okys fj’rs dks izHkkfor djus dh dksf’k’k ugha djsaxsA 06- ;g fd vkilh jkthukek vuqca/k fu"ikfnr gks tkus ls i’pkr~ mHk; i{kdkj rFkk mlds ifjtu fdlh Hkh izdkj fVIi.kh ;k Ogkvl,i eSlst ;k fdlh Hkh rjg dh Vhdk&fVIi.kh ekSf[kd] fyf[kr ;k fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls ,d nwljs ds fo#) ugh djsaxs vkSj u gh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk laidZ ,d&nwljs i{kdkj dks] muds ifjtu] fj’rsnkj ;k ifjfprksa ls djsaxsA ;fn dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj ;k muds ifjtu dksbZ Hkh fVIi.kh ;k eSlsftax djrs gSa rks le>kSrk lekIr ekuk tkosxkA 07- ;g fd] bl jkthukek ds i’pkr mHk; i{kdkjku bl jkthukek dh 'krksZa dk v{kj’k% ikyu djus opuc) gksaxs] ;fn dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj 'krksZa dk mYya?ku djsxk] rks ;g jkthukek vuqca/k fu"izHkkoh ekuk tkosxkA” 7. Today, the parties have also present in person before this Court and accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise and also submitted that the petitioners have agreed and got their case disposed of on the basis 5 of compromise through order dated 11-12-2024 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Giridih passed in Complaint Case No.2905/2022, whereas the respondent has also got her case disposed of on 14-12-2024 which was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg with respect to the proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 8. 8. In view of the categorical statement made by the parties, 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 Cr.P.C. 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] 9. 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 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. 6 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 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. 10. 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 acceptiong the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation.....” 7 11. 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 therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 582 of B.N.S.S. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14155/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg stands quashed against the petitioners (Petitioner No. 1 Neeraj Doknia, Petitioner No. 2 Dr. Sajan Kumar Doknia and Petitioner No. 3 Usha Doknia) who are the accused persons in that case. The impugned order dated 25-02-2025 passed by the learned trial Court so far as it rejects the quashment of the offence Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioners is also quashed. 14. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil