2026:CGHC:8776-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3856 of 2025 1 - Ajay Tandon S/o Radheshyam Tandon Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 2 - Amar Tandon S/o Radheshyam Tandon Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 3 - Smt. Samund Bai Tandon W/o Radheshyam Tandon Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 4 - Priyanka Tandon W/o Amar Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 5 - Amit Tandon S/o Radheshyam Tandon Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ambedkar Chowk, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 6 - Radheshyam Tandon S/o Lt. Deriha Tandon Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ambedkar Chowk, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 7 - Jatin Tandon S/o Amit Tandon Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ambedkar Chowk, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 8 - Smt. Poonam Tandon W/o Amit Tandon Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Ambedkar Chowk, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa, C.G. 2 - Geetanjali Tandon W/o Ajay Tandon Aged About 28 Years R/o Pendri, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Singh, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.20 11:07:23 +0530 Crmp 3856 of 2025 2 Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.02.2026 Heard Shri Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Shailendra Singh, learned PL, appearing for the respondent/State. 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs: 1) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No.203/2019 dated 20.04.2019 registered at Police Station-Pamgarh, Distrit Janjgir-Champa (CG) u/ss 498- A, 34 IPC lodged against the present petitioners, in the interest of justice. 2) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet no.338/2021 dt.18.09.2021 filed before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) u/ss 498-A, 34 of IPC against the present petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3) This Hon’ble Court ;may kindly be pleased to Quash the subsequent criminal proceedings including impugned order of taking cognizance dt 20.05.2022 by Ld Judicial magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) u/ss Crmp 3856 of 2025 3 498-A, 34 of IPC in Criminal Case No.521/2022, in the interest of justice. 4) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the impugned charges framed u/ss 498-A, 34 of IPC on 06.10.2023 against the petitioners and Order dt.06.10.2023 of framing of above charges passed by Ld JMFC, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Criminal Case No.521/2022, in the interest of justice. 5) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, petitioner-1 is husband of respondent-2, whose marriage was solemnized on 25.03.2018 at village Pendri as per the customary rites and rituals. After few days of their marriage, petitioners started harassing the respondent-2 for dowry. Subsequently, respondent-2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC, and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners pursuant to impugned charge-sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that during pendency of the criminal case, petitioner-1/husband and Crmp 3856 of 2025 4 respondent-2/wife entered into mutual compromise agreement dated 24.07.2023, and both the parties agree to one time settlement. 4. In terms of the said agreement, parties have settled the dispute between them in the following terms: (a) a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid to respondent-2, and she expressly recorded her willingness not to further continue with the pending criminal and civil proceedings against the petitioners. (b) Pursuant to the above compromise, petitioner-1 and respondent-2 jointly filed a petition before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-champa under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent, which was decided by a decree dated 10.03.2023. (c) Pursuant to the said compromise agreement, respondent-2 has also withdrew a pending case bearing MJC Criminal Case-120 of 2019 filed by her under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilapsur, CG. (d) Respondent-2 thereafter, withdrew the case filed under Section 125 CrPC in Lok Adalat vide order dated 09.09.2023 passed in MJC No.490 of 2022. Crmp 3856 of 2025 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute under the terms of agreement, and one time maintenance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has already been paid to respondent No.2/wife, the proceeding against the petitioners pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Section 498(A), and 34 of the IPC may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Crmp 3856 of 2025 6 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 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 Crmp 3856 of 2025 7 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 decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 9. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held in para No.14 and 15 of its judgment 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 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 Crmp 3856 of 2025 8 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 10. 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. 11. 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 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. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that parties 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: सम्ቌ ቦኍमन नटरी प቞ኌ क महोदय जॉजॉगीरी , ቞ኌजॉ : जॉजॉगीरी - चाम्प ( छ . गी .) इकरीरीनम प्ቌ ቅ቏. 01 ቦኍमती गीतीजॉ टडन उ्቞ 23 व्ቧ", प቞ኌती अजॉय टडन, जॉ቞ኌती सतीनम, सकिकन प%न्ቑኍ, तीहोस मस्ती)री, ቞ኌजॉ बसप)री (छ.गी.) प्ቌ ቅ቏. 02: 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 Crmp 3856 of 2025 9 अजॉय टडन, उ्቞ 30 व्ቧ" ቞ኌपती रीधे,श्यम टडन, जॉ቞ኌती सतीनम, ቞ኌनवस पमगीढ़, तीहोस पमगीढ़, ቞ኌजॉ: जॉजॉगीरी- चाम्प (छ.गी.) क%कि/यती:- होम प्ቌ ቅ቏. 01 गीतीजॉ टण्डन, प्ቌ ቅ቏. 02 अजॉय टण्डन सय)्ሹ रूप स, इकरीरी करीती, हो% किक दन क ቞ኌववहो ቞ኌहोन्द3 एव सम቞ኌजॉक री቞ኌती रिरीवजॉ क, अन)सरी अ቞ኌ6 क, सम्ቌ सती /, री, गीकरी ቇኋम प8ቑኍ तीहोस मस्ती)री ቞ኌजॉ ቞ኌबसप)री (छ.गी.) म8 किदनक 25.03. 2018 क सम्प्ቐ हुआ सथ म8 गी=न भी हुआ। तीब स, दन प቞ኌती- प቞ኌ@वतीA रीहोती, आय, ,किकन दन प्ቌ क, आचारी ቞ኌवचारी म8 म, नहोB हुआ इस቞ኌय, मतीभी,द बढ़ती गीय, इस቞ኌय, ቞ኌववहो क, बद एक महो तीक सथ रीहो, उसक, बद स, ቦኍम቞ኌती गीतीजॉ टण्डन अपन, मयक, म8 हो% इस बचा दन प्ቌC क, मती- ቞ኌपती भी समझौ=ती क ्ቚयस करीती, रीहो, इसक, बद भी दन क मतीभी,द बढ़ती गीय, अब दन क प቞ኌती- प቞ኌ@ क, रूप म8 एक सथ जॉवन ቞ኌनव"हो करीन असभीव हो गीय हो% इस቞ኌय, प्ቌ ቅ቏. 01 एव प्ቌቅ቏. 02 एव उनक, मती- ቞ኌपती क, एव क)ट)म्ब न्ययय जॉजॉगीरी क, सम्ቌ दन प्ቌ क स्व,च्छ प3व"क ቞ኌबन किकस डरी दबव दन अब ቞ኌववहो ቞ኌवच्छ,द (तीक) ,न तीय करी ቞ኌय, हो% औरी प्ቌ ቅ቏. 01 गीतीजॉ टण्डन क स्थय भीरीण प्ቧण क, रूप म8 7,50,000/-( सती ख पचास होजॉरी रूपय,) नगीद अद करी किदय हो%, अब एक द3सरी, स, कई री቞ኌK ,न- द,न K,्ቧ नहोB बचा हो%। दन प्ቌ क, ቞ኌववहो क ቞ኌववहो- ቞ኌवच्छ,द (तीक) आजॉ स, हो मन जॉव8। अब दन अगी- अगी अपन,- अपन, अन)सरी जॉवन यवन करी8। दनC प्ቌ क प቞ኌती- प቞ኌ@ क रिरीश्ती सम्቎ हो गीय हो%। जॉ भी न्यययन ्ቚकरीण ቞ኌबती हो% धेरी 498 भी.द.቞ኌव., भीरीण प्ቧण अतीगी"ती धेरी 125 द.्ቚ.स., घरी,3 िሻहोस आकिद उस, प्ቌ ቅ቏. 01 स्वतीO हो ቞ኌबन Kती" क, खरिरीजॉ करीय,गी, इस वस्ती, इकरीरीनम ቞ኌखकरी, पढ़करी, समझौकरी गीवहोC क, सम्ቌ ቞ኌनष्पकिदती करी किदय,। व्ሹ जॉरूरीती परी कम आव,। स्थन: जॉजॉगीरी किदनक: 24.07.2023 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner-1 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.521 of 2022. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa, in Criminal Case No.521 of 2022 with Crmp 3856 of 2025 10 respect to the petitioners are hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties on 24.07.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma