1 2026:CGHC:1918-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 77 of 2026 1 - Kisan Sahu S/o Shri Raghubar Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, Resident of Dehanpara Old Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda Tehsil and District- Bilaspur ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Mamta Sahu W/o Kisan Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, Resident of Infront of Swarna Residency Shivam City Road Mopka Tehsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent-State: Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13-01-2026 1. Heard Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent-State. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.15 16:10:17 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash/set-aside the impugned FIR No. 21/2023 registered on dated 20.03.2025 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for the offence u/s 498(A) & 34 of I.P.C., the cognizance order passed by learned JMFC, Bilaspur (C.G.) on dated 24.04.2023 and the entire criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No. 3100/2023) initiated against the petitioners pursuant to FIR No. 21/2023 and charge sheet, in the interest of justice." 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the petitioner is husband of respondent No.2 Mamta Sahu whose marriage has been solemnized on 29-01-2022 with the customary rites and rituals. After some time of marriage her in-laws and her husband have tortured her mentally and physically for demand of dowry and therefore, she filed an application at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur. In the month of August, 2022 she came to her parents house at the time Teeja festival and thereafter her husband has not taken her back and said that he will be taken her back only when she will come with a car and golden necklace. She also made an application before Mahila Pramarsh Kendra, but the 3 settlement between them could not be arrived at and then she lodged the complaint. The FIR for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC was registered against the husband and in-laws. After due procedure of investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for its trial, where Criminal Case No.3100/2023 is registered and pending for its trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.2/complainant has raised trivial issue and it was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. She would further submit that there is settlement between the parties and a divorce decree has been passed on the basis of mutual consent by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur vide its judgment dated 08-08-2025 and decree dated 11-08-2025 passed in Civil Suit No.527A/2025. It was the terms of settement that respondent No.2/complainant shall withdraw her complaint and get the criminal case under Section 498(A) of the IPC closed. Since the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute under the terms of settlement, one time maintenance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- have already been paid to the respondent No.2/complainant, the proceeding against the petitioner pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 498(A), 34 of the IPC may be quashed. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles in para No.61 and 62 that : “61. 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 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 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. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly 6 decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 8. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held in para No.14 and 15 as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3 has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 7 10. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the pro- ceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that par- ties have entered into compromise and the terms of settlement have been reduced in writing in the settlement deed dated 26-07-2025. It is necessary to reiterate the terms of settlement which is as follows:- “1- ;g fd mHk;i{k nf’kZr irs ij fuokl djrs gSA 2- ;g fd mHk;i{k dk fookg fnukad 29-01-2022 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ls f’koe flVh jksM]eksidk] Fkkuk&ljdaMk] rg- o ftyk & fcykliqj ¼N-x-½ esa laiUu gqvk FkkA fookg mijkar mHk;i{k ifr&ifRu ds :i esa nkEiR; thou dk fuokZg izkjaHk fd;sA 3- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds nkEiR; lalxZ ls dksbZ larku ugh gSA 4- ;g fd fookg ds Ik’pkr o"kZ 2023 esa mHk;i{k ds chp oSpkfjd erHksn mRiUu gks x;k vkSj blh otg ls fnukad 15-03-2023 ls iw.kZ:i ls vyx&vyx fuokljr~ gS rFkk muds chp dksbZ Hkh nkEiR; laca/k LFkkfir ugh gqvk gSA 5- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds e/; vkilh oSpkfjd erHksn gksus ds dkj.k ges’kk okn&fookn gkssrs jgk gSA ftlds dkj.k os LosPNk ls i`Fkd jguk Lohdkj fd;s gSa vkSj i`Fkd jgus dh ea’kk cukdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k vkilh lgefr ls mHk;i{k rykd gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr dj jgs gSaA vc nksusk ds chp Hkfo"; esa Hkh ifr&iRuh ds :i esa lkFk jguk laHko ugh gSA 6- ;g fd mHk;i{k fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr djus ds ckn Lora= thou&;kiu djuk pkgrs gS rFkk os ,d&nwljs ds fo:) dksbZ eqd- nesa ckth Hkh ugha djsaxsA 8 7- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds e/; vkilh lgefr gqbZ gS fd os ikjLifjd lgefr ls fookg foPNsn djuk pkgrs gSA 8- ;g fd vkosfndk dz-02 ds }kjk vkosnd dz- 01 ds fo:) yxk;s x;s Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds izdj.k dks vkilh lgefr ls okil ys jgh gS rFkk vkosfndk dz- 02 ds }kjk vkosnd dz- 01 o mlds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) /kkjk 498 ,] 34 Hkk-n-fo- dk vijk/k iathc} djk;k x;k ftldk iz-d- 3100@2023 ekuuh; U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh fcykliqj esa yafcr gS ,oa iz-dz- 1708@2023 i{kdkj N-x- ’kklu fo:) lw;kZ lkgw tks ekuuh; N-x- mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS] lkFk gh i{kdkj fd’ku lkgw fo- eerk lkgw dk Hkh izdj.k ekuuh; N-x- mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj esa yafcr gS] ftls vkosfndk dz- 02 okil ysxhA 9- ;g fd vkosfndk dz- 02 dks varfje Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh‘’ks"k jkf’k 13]000@:- ¼rsjg gtkj :i;s½ vkosnd dz- 01 ds }kjk iznku fd;k tk jgk gSA 10- ;g fd vkosnd dz-01 ds }kjk vkosfndk dz- 02 dks thou fuokZg ¼,deq’r½ ds :i esa jkf’k 5]00]000@&:- ¼ikap yk[k :i;s½ iznku fd;s tkus gsrq mHk;i{k ds e/; le>kSrk gqvk gS ftlesa vkosnd dz- 01 ds }kjk vkosfndk dz- 02 dks uxn ds ek/;e ls vkt fnukad 26-07-2025 dks fn;k tk;sxkA 11- ;g fd vkosfndk dz- 02 ds ifjokj okyksa ds }kjk vkosnd dz- 01 dks fn;s x;s eksVj lk;dy tks fd vkosnd dz- 01 ds uke ij iathd`r gS ftlds pkyu es flxuy czsd gks tkus ds dkj.k ;krk;kr iqfyl ds }kjk vf/kjksfir 8]000@&:- dk pkyku n.M dh jkf’k dks vkosnd dz- 01 ds }kjk vnk fd;k tk;sxkA 12- ;g fd vkosnd dz- 01] vkosfndk dz- 02 dk L=h/ku dk lHkh lkeku fnukad 20-07 2025 dks iznku fd;k tk pqdk gSA 13- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds e/; thou fuokZfgrk jkf’k ;k L=h/ku ds laca/k esa dksbZ fookn ’ks"k ugha gS vkSj u gh Hkfo"; esa ,d&nwljs ds izfr fdlh Hkh izdkj dk ysu&nsu vFkok dksbZ nkf;Ro ’ks"k ugh jgsxkA 9 vr% ;g le>kSrkukek vkt fnukad 26@7@2025 dks nks xokgksa ds le{k Ik<+dj] lqudj o le>dj viuk&viuk gLrk{kj dj fu"ikfnr dj jgs gSA” 12. Pursuant to the settlement between the parties they have filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and ob- tained divorce decree on 11-08-2025 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.527A/2025. In para 8 of the settlement deed dated 26-07-2025 it was the condition that the complainant should not press her complaint in which Criminal Case No.3100/2023 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably and respondent No.2 acted upon the terms of settlement, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.3100/2023. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.3100/2023 with respect to the petitioner Kisan Sahu is hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties on 26-07-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil