1 2025:CGHC:52940-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2952 of 2025 1 - Mayank Pandey S/o Shri Chandrakant Pandey, Aged About 30 Years 2 - Chandrakant Pandey, S/o Late Shatruhan Prasad Pandey, Aged About 60 Years 3 - Smt. Preeti Pandey W/o Shri Chandrakant Pandey, Aged About 57 Years 4 - Ku. Jahnavi Pandey, D/o Shri Chandrakant Pandey Aged About 27 Years All resident of Brahman Para, Simga, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Priyanshi Pandey Urf Prachi, W/o Shri Mayank Pandey, Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Naka No. 1, Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 and 2/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. M.K.Sinha, Advocate. CRR No. 1170 of 2025 Mayank Urf Vinay Pandey S/o Shri Chandrakant Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Brahman Para, Simga, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus 2 Priyanshi Urf Vidya Pandey W/o Mayank Urf Vinay Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Naka No. 1, Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. M.K.Sinha, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/10/2025 1 Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/ applicant, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. M.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/wife. 2 The petitioners, in Cr.M.P. No. 2952/2025, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks for the following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing FIR No. 180/2024 dated 29.05.2024 registered with respondent No. 2- Police Station and charge sheet filed before the JMFC, Balodabazar, under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Act and order dated 12.08.2025 of cognizance taken by learned court below and in consequence quash the entire criminal case (i.e. Criminal Case No. 997/2025 between State v. Mayank Pandey & Ors.) pending before the JMFC Balodabazar, being abuse of process of court and abuse of 3 process of law and also in violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.” 3 The applicant, in Cr.R. No. 1170/2025, filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeks for the following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, reject the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance and set-aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure A/1) in Case No. 153/2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.).” 4 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1-Mayank Pandey was solemnized with the complainant-wife/respondent namely Smt. Priyanshi Pandey @ Prachi, on 02.07.2021at Bhatapara and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife at Simga alongwith the petitioners No. 2 to 4, who are the parents and and sister of the petitioner No. 1. After few days of marriage, the respondent-wife wanted to reside separately with the petitioner No.1 i.e. husband and always forced him to leave his parents. When the petitioner No. 1 did not act as per the wishes of the respondent-wife, she threatened the petitioners that she will falsely accuse the petitioners in false case and even used to fight with the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 just to avoid daily fights started living separately with the complainant away from his parents. On 25.02.2022 the respondent left the matrimonial house without informing anyone and for that the petitioners got scared and soon made a complaint to the Police with regard to the missing of the respondent but 4 after 2 days on 27.02.2022, she returned back from her brother’s house. Even the respondent wife was lethargic in doing the household chores and used to abuse and quarrel with the petitioner No. 1. On 09.11.2023 when petitioner No.1 was going to the Hospital then the respondent-wife asked the petitioner No.1 to lock the door from outside as she was not feeling well and wanted not to be disturbed by anyone. When the petitioner returned from the hospital then the petitioner No. 1 was shocked to see the family members of the respondent-wife and they started blaming and abusing the petitioners and took the respondent with them. The petitioners also visited the respondent’s parental home to take her back with them but she denied and made false accusations. After making repeated request when respondent-wife did not came back, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Family Court, Balodabazar. Meanwhile the respondent always refused to go back to matrimonial house whenever the petitioners tried to convince her. However on the contrary respondent wife lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 29.05.2024 upon which an FIR was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. It was alleged by the respondent-wife that she was being treated with cruelty mentally and physically and the petitioners used to demand dowry from her. The respondent wife also alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was having illicit relationship with other woman. After registration of the FIR and without properly investigating the matter, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5 It is the further case of the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking 5 maintenance to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month from the petitioner. The respondent-wife filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 153/2024, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara in which the learned Family Judge, vide order dated 13.08.2024, directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of making of the application i.e. 10.06.2024. The said order is also sought to be challenged by way of the present revision petition. 6 This Court, vide order dated 22.09.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the High Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibilities of amicable settlement and till then, the further proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar in Criminal Case No. 997/2025 was directed to remain stayed. 7 Today, Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that the parties had duly appeared for mediation proceedings on 10.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and finally, on 28.10.2025, the parties i.e. the petitioner No. 1-husband and the respondent-wife have settled their dispute amicably and as such, the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings alongwith the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, may be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State and others, {(2008) 16 SCC 1}, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & others, {(2003) 4 SCC 675} and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, {(2012) 10 SCC 303}. 8 Learned counsel appearing for other side do not controvert the above submission that there has been a settlement agreement arrived at between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent-wife in the mediation proceedings on 28.10.2025. 6 9 As the petitioner(s) and the respondent-wife have mutually resolved their disputes amicably and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma (supra), B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) and also taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR has emanated has been amicably settled, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioners in these matters. 10 In view of the above, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0180/2024, dated 29.05.2024 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar, the charge sheet bearing No. 218/2024, dated 28.07.2024 filed by the police, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, District Balodabazar under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the order dated 12.08.2025 taking cognizance by the learned trial Court and the entire consequential criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 997/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, Balodabazar, as well as the order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 153/2024, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, are quashed, subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement by the parties. 11 Resultantly, Cr.M.P. No. 2952/2025 as well as Cr.R.No. 1170/2025, stand allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.31 12:56:50 +0530