1 2026:CGHC:19286-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 937 of 2026 1 - Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya S/o Vishwanath Chhapoliya Aged About 30 Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post- Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha) 2 - Smt. Sangeeta Chhapoliya W/o Vishwanath Chhpoliya Aged About 55 Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post- Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha) 3 - Vishwanath Chhapoliya S/o Vishwanath Chhapoliya Aged About 57 Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post- Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - Shreya Chhapoliya (Goinka) W/o Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya S/o Vishwanath Chhapoliya, D/o Late Shri Anand Prakash Goyanka, R/o House No. 127, Crest Green Society, Near Disha College, Kota Road Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29 17:10:47 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 27 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 02-02-2025 under Section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code relating to Crime No.09/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and also quash the final report No.49/2025 dated 16-08- 2025 for the offences under Section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code, as well as the entire criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No.40841/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and also quash the cognizance taken by the learned trial court dated 18-09-2025 for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code (C.G.), against the petitioners. 2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (wife) was solemnized on 3 23.06.2023, after which the complainant alleged that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty for insufficient dowry while residing with the petitioners, leading her to lodge a complaint at Mahila Thana, Raipur, on the basis of which an FIR dated 02.02.2025 was registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 95/2025 dated 16.08.2025 was filed, and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur took cognizance on 18.09.2025 in Criminal Case No. 40841/2025. 4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have jointly filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Raipur for divorce by mutual consent, wherein it has been agreed that the respondent No. 2 shall cooperate in quashment of the criminal proceedings and withdraw all allegations, and the petitioner No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, with all articles already returned, leaving no dispute subsisting between the parties. 5. The terms and conditions of their settlement/ compromise is as under :- (A). Amongst all the pending cases there is one FIR No. 09/2025 Registered at Mahila Thana- Raipur u/s 498-A of IPC against Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya, Smt. Sangeeta Chhapoliya and Vishwanath Chhapoliya. However, today only Party no. 1 is present. 2nd Party Smt. Shreya has no objection to settle the matter for absent parties. Against this FIR No. 09/2025 CRMP No. 4 937/2026 has been filed and pending before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh the second party after this agreement will have no objection for the quashment of the FIR No. 09/2025 as well as Criminal Case No. 40841/2025 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur. (B). Likewise there is one more FIR No. 0075/2025 BNS 296, 115(2), 308(3), 351(2), 3(5) Registered at Police Station - Purighat Cuttack, District Cuttack (Oddisha). It is agreed by the parties, that endeavor will be taken by both the parties for the quashment of the FIR as well as the Criminal Case if any registered, by filing application u/s 528 of BNSS. (C). Apart from the above mentioned cases between the parties there are two applications filed by the parties for obtaining decree of divorce. They are as follows:- (i) Application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing case no. 1008/2025 filed by Shreya Chhapoliya Party No. 2 which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) (ii) Application filed by u/s 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act bearing Case no. 59/2025 is filed by Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya Party No. 1 which is pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) (iii) Both the parties want to move on in their respective lives separately for that matter they want divorce and as agreed between the parties alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- Lakh is fixed to 5 be paid to Shreya out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- has been paid to Shreya Chhapoliya(Party No. 2) and Rs. 1,00,000/- Lakh cash has been deposited by Party No. 1 which Shreya Chhapoliya (Party No. 2) has received on 21.04.2026 today. A copy of the receipt will be the part of this agreement. (iv) Some original document Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Driving License, Passport and Mark sheet are also demanded by Shreya Chhapoliya Party No. 2 but Party No. 1 denies to have it with him, still just in case it is traceable will be returned back to Shreya Chhapoliya (Party No. 2). (v) Apart from the above mentioned alimony parties have no transaction left in future, they will not be filling any criminal case, Civil Case against each other and every marital obligations towards each other are terminated by this agreement. (vi) The divorce case filed by the Party no. I will be withdrawn and this settlement deed will be filed & submitted before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 1008/2025 for drawing the decree or divorce by properly filing the application in this regard.. (vii) From the entire amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- Lakh only Rs. 1,50,000/-has been left to be paid that will be paid before Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on the date of final decree of divorce through a Demand Draft passed by the Family Court, Raipur in Case No. 1008/2025. 6 (viii) As agreed by both the parties that they will never disturb their future lives and will not try to malign their reputation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the aforesaid amicable settlement, it is humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another, 2013 (4) SCC 58, Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, - (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case, after filing of criminal case under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, parties have amicably settled their disputes and pursuant thereto, filed an application under Section 13-B 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. They are also in process of closing of their case filed under Section 12 read with Section 20, 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, 2005 and also under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 10. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 10 to 15 paras “10. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. 11. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. 12. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held: “8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” 8 13. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 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.” 11. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. 12. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- 9 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 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 10 the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 13. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and has been amicably settled through mediation, this Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would adversely affect the chances of reconciliation. The settlement arrived at between the parties appears to be voluntary and genuine. 14. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra), this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, quash the FIR dated 02.02.2025 registered in Crime No. 09/2025, under Section 498-A/34 of IPC at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur and also quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40841/2025 against the petitioners/accused persons, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 15. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika