1 2026:CGHC:6692-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 399 of 2026 1 - Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Uman Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Basula, Khaprikkhurd, P.S. Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Details Of The Petitioner As Per Aadhar Card, Although Dharmendra Kumar Verma And Others S/o Uman Verm Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) (Husband Of The Complainant) 2 - Uman Verma S/o Madan Lal Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Basula, Khaprikkhurd, P.S. Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Father In Law Of The Complainant) 3 - Smt. Savitri Bai Verma W/o Shri Uman Lal Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Basula, Khaprikkhurd, P.S. Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Details Of The Petitioner As Per Aadhar Card, Savitri Bai Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) (Mother In Law Of The Complainant) 4 - Smt. Sarochi Verma W/o Shri Digeshwar Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Basula, Khaprikkhurd, P.S. Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Details Of The Petitioner As Per Aadhar Card, Santoshi Verma Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) (Sister In Law Of The Complainant) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.06 17:49:56 +0530 2 5 - Smt. Kamni Verma W/o Shri Krishna Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Basula, Khaprikkhurd, P.S. Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Details Of The Petitioner As Per Aadhar Card, Kamini Verma Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) (Sister In Law Of The Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. 2 - Smt. Richa Singh W/o Dharmendra Kumar Aged About 38 Years R/o Qtr. No. 35 F, Street No. 16, Sector 02, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate For State For Res. No. 2/ Complainant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Mr. Sanchit Bhatt, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06 .02.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) has been preferred by the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the Respondent No. 2/ 3 complainant, seeking for quashment of the impugned FIR dated 02.04.2022 bearing Crime No. 24/2022 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dist- Durg for the offence under Section 498A and 34 of IPC, against the petitioners (part of the impugned Charge sheet (Challan) Final Report Dated 30/08/2022, filed as Annexure P/1) and also the impugned Final Report Dated 30/08/2022 bearing Challan No. 71/2022, filed before Learned JMFC Durg, arising out of the FIR dated 02/04/2022 and this Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 12/12/2022 vide which the Learned JMFC Durg has taken cognizance against the petitioners and sequential entire order sheets passed in RCC No. 14431/2022 (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice. Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that The marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 28.02.2020 at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites, with marriage expenses equally borne by both families. Thereafter, routine matrimonial differences arose, which were personal in nature and, without any specific allegations or overt acts, led to the casual implication of Petitioner Nos.2 to 5. On a complaint dated 02.04.2022, FIR No.24/2022 under Sections 498A and 34 IPC was registered, followed by filing of charge-sheet No.71/2022 and framing of charges in RCC No.14431/2022. 3. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties amicably settled the dispute through reconciliation, pursuant to which Respondent No.2 4 decided to resume peaceful matrimonial life and filed an application dated 17.04.2025 seeking termination of proceedings. However, the Learned JMFC rejected the application on 09.09.2025 solely on the ground of non-compoundability of Section 498A IPC, despite the complete settlement, rendering the continuation of proceedings oppressive and an abuse of process, warranting quashment under Section 528 BNSS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No. 1 and complainant/ respondent No. 2 are peacefully cohabiting together and the parties have resolved all the differences previously arose between them. He further submit that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings, despite a complete settlement and the unequivocal desire of Respondent No. 2/ complainant to reside harmoniously with the petitioners, would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/ complainant would submit that the Complainant/ Respondent No. 2 has no objection if the impugned charge-sheet, the order dated 12.12.2022 taking cognizance, the order dated 14.03.2023 framing charges, the order dated 09.09.2025 rejecting the application for non-prosecution, and all other consequential order sheets passed in RCC No. 14431/2022 are quashed and set aside under Section 528 BNSS, in the interest of justice, equity and to secure peaceful matrimonial life between the parties. 5 6. 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 498-A of IPC vide RCC No. 14431/2022 as the parties have already entered into compromise. 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for 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 528 of BNSS /482 CrPC 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] 8. 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 6 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. 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. 7 9. 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.....” 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 582 of B.N.S.S. is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR bearing Crime No. 24/2022 dated 02.04.2022 registered at P.S. 8 Mahila Thana, Durg, impugned order dated 12.12.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Durg and entire order-sheets passed in RCC No. 14431/2022 stands quashed against the petitioners, who are the accused persons in that case. 13. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika