1 2026:CGHC:12377-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 749 of 2026 1 - Devendra Soni S/o Pavan Soni Aged About 28 Years At- Maharana Pratap Nagar, District Korba, C.G. 2 - Pavan Soni S/o Late Ram Kishun Soni Aged About 50 Years At- Maharana Pratap Nagar, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Mahila Thana, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Poonam Soni W/o Devendra Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o Sondongri, Hirapur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer and Mr. P. Datt, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Girish Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.17 11:56:17 +0530 2 heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. P. Datt, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Chargesheet bearing Number Chargesheet bearing Number 64/23 dated 16/07/2023, FIR No. 78/23 dated 01/06/23 registered by PS Mahila Thana District Raipur (C.G.) for offences u/s 498A, 34 of IPC, Order taking cognizance dated 08.09.2023 and the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Ld. JMFC, Raipur, C.G., in Criminal case no. 14649/23 in case titled as "State of CG Vs Devendra Soni & Anr" in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after culmination of investigation, the impugned charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Trial Court and during the pendency of trial the parties, with the intervention of their family members, arrived at an amicable settlement in respect of their matrimonial dispute. It is contended that the private respondent herself moved an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking compounding of the offences, whereupon the learned Trial Court verified and recorded the factum of compromise between the parties. However, the application was partly rejected on the ground that certain offences, including the one punishable under Section 498-A IPC, do not fall within the schedule of compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 406 IPC 3 was permitted to be compounded and the petitioners were acquitted of the said charge, thereby demonstrating the bona fides of the settlement. Hence this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the submission advanced by 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 order-sheets annexed with the petition and submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners and respondents No. 2/complainant have already settled their dispute and compromised the matter outside the Court. 7. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the nature of the dispute being purely matrimonial, and the parties having voluntarily entered into a genuine and lawful compromise without any undue influence, threat or coercion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to abuse of the process of law. 8. In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 14649/2023 arising out of Final Report No.64/2023 dated 16.07.2023 in pursuance to the FIR bearing Crime No. 78/2023 dated 01.06.2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of the IPC 4 against the petitioners and order taking cognizance dated 08.09.2023 is hereby quashed subject to the condition that the petitioners shall comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet