1 2025:CGHC:54526-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3375 of 2025 Atish Meshram S/o Jageshwar Meshram Aged About 33 Years Resident Of G-15, Ward No. 43, Adarsh Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (Husband) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Station Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Disha Meshram W/o Atish Meshram Aged About 27 Years R/o Govindpur, Police Station Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:08:30 +0530 2 respondent No.1/State and Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly 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 and and allow this CRMP and quash FIR no. 375/2024 dated 26/10/2024 and entire charge sheet in which offences are registered under section 85 and 3(5) of BNS quash order and taking cognizance dated 17.12.2024 and the subsequent criminal proceeding in RCC/6597/2024 pending before the court of learned Cheif Judicial Magistrate Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) kindly be quashed/set aside, because it is bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law (ANNEXURE A/1 Colly) in the interest of justice. 2. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, and allow this CRMP and kindly be quashed/set aside order dated 10.10.2025 because the application under section 359(1) of BNSS is being rejected is bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law (ANNEXURE A/4) in the interest of justice. 3. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the present applicant, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 05.04.2021 near Kanker as per Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter they resided together at Durg as husband and wife. The complainant lodged FIR No. 375/2024 at Police Station Kanker on 05.08.2024 under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, alleging harassment for dowry, in which the petitioner was falsely implicated on vague and general allegations. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case, both parties amicably resolved all their disputes and entered into a mutual compromise. Pursuant thereto, they jointly filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the learned Family Court, Kanker, vide order dated 06.09.2025, granted mutual divorce by consent of both parties. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 359(1) of the BNSS, 2023, for compounding of offences, and the complainant/respondent No. 2 herself appeared before the trial court and categorically stated that she had amicably settled the matter with the applicant, had no subsisting grievance, and did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Despite such clear compromise and voluntary statement by the complainant, the learned trial court, in an arbitrary manner, rejected the compounding application vide order dated 10.10.2025. Hence, in view of the mutual settlement and dissolution of marriage, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would serve no purpose and amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 /complainant 4 also admits the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in this petition. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that during the pendency of the case, both parties amicably resolved all their disputes and entered into a mutual compromise. Pursuant thereto, they jointly filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the learned Family Court, Kanker, vide order dated 06.09.2025, granted mutual divorce by consent of both parties. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 359(1) of the BNSS, 2023, for compounding of offences, and the complainant/respondent No. 2 herself appeared before the trial court and categorically stated that she had amicably settled the matter with the applicant, had no subsisting grievance, and did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled by the parties by way of compromise deed and further, proceeding against the family members of the petitioner have already been quashed by this Court in CRMP No. 943/2025, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioner in this matter. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 5 375/2024 dated 26.10.2024 registered at Police Station Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2024 and further consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCC/6597/2024 pending against the petitioner is hereby quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise application arrived at between the parties. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet