1 2025:CGHC:52621-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3243 of 2025 Bhaskar Trivedi S/o Late Shri Bharat Nath Dwivedi Aged About 36 Years R/o Plot No 04, C, Vijay Homes, Amethiya Nagar, PO And PS Naamkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, P I N- 834010 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. -Mahila Thana, Sector 6, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Saloni Mishra W/o Bhaskar Trivedi, D/o Upendra Nath Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, P.S.- Urla, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2/ Complainant : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.31 11:00:46 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State and Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ Complainant. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition bearing CRMP No. 2186 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14/07/2025 with a liberty to file a fresh subject to depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost as the prayer made in the said petition was defective one. He would submit that he deposited the cost on 29/07/2025 bearing receipt book No. 6053/2029. He would further submit that the original receipt has been lost by the petitioner, hence he could not file the same, however, he had applied for a duplicate copy of the receipt which is under process. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 4. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition by 3 setting aside and also quash the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P/3), order framing charges dated 23.07.2022 (ΑΝNEXURE P/1) passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Class-1 Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 793 of 2022 and chargesheet bearing No. 51/2020 with order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2020 arising out of FIR bearing No. 318/2019 registered at PS Urla, District Raipur (CG) (ANNEXURE P/2) registered against the present Petitioner under Section 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.” 5. Facts of the case are that the present petitioner is being roped in FIR No. 318 of 2019 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 (complainant) was solemnized on 22.02.2019 at Ranchi, Jharkhand, according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent resided with the petitioner for only about 5–6 days and thereafter returned to her parental home at Raipur citing personal reasons. She later returned to her matrimonial home, tendered a written apology, and stayed for a few more days before again leaving for her parental house at Raipur, where she has been residing since then. Despite several efforts by the petitioner and his family members to reconcile and persuade her to resume cohabitation, the respondent refused to return, and subsequently, she lodged the 4 impugned FIR making general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner and his family members. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet do not, even prima facie, disclose the essential ingredients necessary for constituting the offences under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, made only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, and do not constitute any cognizable offence. He would also submit that during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement deed dated 05.03.2025, a duly executed settlement deed dated 05.03.2025 has been annexed with the present petition, in terms of which both the parties have also filed a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the Family Court, Raipur. In view of the said amicable settlement and the ongoing mutual consent divorce proceedings, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and would serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to 5 quash the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant would not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and agrees with the submission that the settlement has been entered between the parties. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the settlement deed (copy of which is Annexed as Annexure- P/4) has been entered between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute being purely matrimonial in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P/3), the order framing charges dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 793 of 2022, and the charge-sheet bearing No. 51/2020 along with the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2020 arising out of FIR No. 318/2019 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences under Sections 6 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is allowed with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar