1 2026:CGHC:2138-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 20 of 2026 1 - Kalishankar Dewangan S/o Tiju Ram Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Nagar Panchayat, Kura, Police Station- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Madhulika Dewangan W/o Kalishankar Dewangan Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Nagar Panchayat, Kura, Police Station- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) Another Address - Beside Post Office, Near Bus Stand, P.S.- Kotwali, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Tiju Ram Dewangan S/o Late Kuleshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 79 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Nagar Panchayat, Kura, Police Station- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Aishwarya Dewangan S/o Tijuram Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Nagar Panchayat, Kura, Police Station- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Suresh Dewangan S/o Lalji Dewangan Aged About 53 Years R/o Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, Beside Annaprna Medical, P.S.- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Nilima Dewangan W/o Suresh Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, Beside Annaprna Medical, P.S.- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2 - Smt. Chandrakiran Dewangan W/o Aishwarya Dewangan Aged About 44 Years R/o Purani Basti, Jaiswal Mohalla, District- Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 26.07.2018 bearing Crime No. 301/2018 registered at Police Station, Dharsinwa, District-Raipur (C.G.) and Final Report No. 241/2019 dated 12.07.2019 submitted by Police Station, Dharsinwa before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 506(B), 344, 509(A), 385, 387, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and Section 4, 5 of Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, 2005, against the petitioners, on the basis of compromise/ settlement between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. 3 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charges dated 24.03.2021, whereby the learned JMFC, Raipur has framed charges under Section 498/34 of IPC and Section 5 of Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, 2005 against the petitioners no. 1 to 4 and charge under Section 498/34 of IPC against the petitioners no. 5 & 6. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.12.2025, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the applications U/s 320(2) of Cr.P.C. (Section 359 of B.N.S.S.) and application under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. (Section 359(8) of B.N.S.S.) for permission to compound the offences. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 8743/2019 pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur against the petitioners. 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR dated 26.07.2018 bearing Crime No. 301/2018, the consequent Final Report No. 241/2019 dated 12.07.2019, the order framing charges dated 24.03.2021, as well as the order dated 04.12.2025 rejecting the applications for compounding, are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. He further submitted that pursuant to the 4 settlement, respondent No. 2 has voluntarily resolved all her grievances and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Continuation of the impugned proceedings, despite the settlement, would amount to abuse of the process of law and would serve no useful purpose. He also submitted that even though certain offences alleged are technically non- compoundable, this Hon’ble Court is empowered to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 He contended that the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the applications under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by adopting a hyper- technical approach, without considering the binding principles governing quashment on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 5 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: - “15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the 6 High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.” 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and the respondent No.2 does not want to further prosecute the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), we are of the opinon that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the criminal proceedings and the FIR. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8743/2019 pending against the petitioners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 301/2018 registered at Police Station – Dharsinwa, District – Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506(B), 344, 509(A), 385, 387, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and Section 4, 5 of Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, 2005, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise/ settlement between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra