1 2026:CGHC:21139-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1139 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Roopchand Sahu, Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Ward No. 6, House No. 561/2, Tahkur Lal Chowk, P.S. Lalbagh, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Deori, District- Balod (C.G.) 2 - Kriti Sahu W/o Mukesh Kumar Sahu, R/o- Dumarghuncha, Police Outpost- Pinkapar, P.S- Deori, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 06-05-2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.11 11:05:17 +0530 2 “i. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and in exercise thereof call for the records & allow this CRMP and quash FIR no. 182/2025 lodged at police Station Deori District Balod (C.G.) dated 25.11.2025 and entire final report bearing no. 28/2026 in which offences are registered under section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 85, 88, 89 of the BNS 2023 (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice". ii. "It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition to quash order taking cognizance dated 11.03.2026 and the subsequent criminal proceeding in Session Case No.22/2026 pending before the Court of learned First Additional Session Judge Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) Annexure A/2 in the interest of justice.” iii. "It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 solemnized on 25.02.2025. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant / respondent No.2 on 25.11.2025 alleging that after 15 days of the marriage, the petitioner on small issues started harassing her mentally and physically and in the night of 30.09.2025, during pregnancy, when she asked the petitioner to 3 serve food to her mother-in-law, the petitioner started beating her, upon which the complainant informed at her parental house and the petitioner also made phone call to complainant’s sister and asked them to take the complainant along with them. After that, on 02.10.2025, when the complainant parents, her sisters and brother-in-law came to her matrimonial house, some dispute took place due to which the petitioner had given life threatening warning and after that complainant came to her parental house and thereafter, lodged the impugned FIR on 25.11.2025 which has been registered for the offence under Section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 85, 88, 89 of the BNS 2023. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Daundilohara, District Balod and after committal the case is pending before the learned First Additional Session Judge, Balod as Session Case No.22/2026. 3. Considering the nature of the dispute, this Court deemed it appropriate to refer the matter for settlement through mediation and also directed the parties to appear before the mediation center of this Court on 30.04.2026. On 30.04.2026 they make their presence before the mediation center and have settled the dispute on the terms and conditions of compromise dated 30.04.2026. The mediation center has also reported that ‘the matter is settled’. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute and entered into compromise before the Mediation Center on 30.04.2026 and the respondent No.2 is not willing to continue the present petition. 4 5. Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing the FIR (Crime No.182/2025) registered at Police Station- Deori, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) along with the entire charge-sheet No. 28/2026 and the order taking cognizance dated 11.03.2026 and registration of the case as Session Case No. 22/2026 and the subsequent proceeding pending before the learned trial Court against the petitioner, as the parties have already entered into compromise. 6. The conditions of compromise, as per compromise between the parties dated 30.04.2026, is necessary to reproduce here for consideration which is as below:- “ उभयप्ቌ के बीच निम्लिलित शत पर समझौता निकया जा रहा है :- 1. यह निक प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू एवं प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू निववाह निवच्छेद के लिए सहमत हुये है। 2. यह निक इसके लिए प्ቌकार कं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू ्ቛारा प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू को स्थायी भरण- पोषण के रूप में एक मुश्त रूपये 4,00,000/- ( चार ा रूपये मा्ቔ) देे को सहमत हुये है। जिजसमें से माीय mPp न्यायाय के ्ቚकरण ्ቅं माक MCRCA No. 1961/2025 मे आदेशाुसार रूपये 1,00,000/- (एक ा रूपये मा्ቔ) को निदांक 06.01.2026 को प्ቌकार कं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू को मध्यस्थता के न््ቖ मे ्ቚदा निकया जा चूका है तथा माीय mPp न्यायाय के ्ቚकरण कं माक CRMP No. 1139/2026 मे आदेशाुसार रूपये 1,00,000/- ( एक ा रूपये मा्ቔ) को निदांक 30.04.2026 को प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू को मध्यस्थता के न््ቖ में ्ቚदा निकया जा चूका है। 5 3. यह निक बकाया राशिश रूपये 2,00,000/- ( दो ा रूपये मा्ቔ) प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू ्ቛारा प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू को निदांक 05.06.2026 को उके ाता ्ቅमांक 20238273504, जिजसका IFSC Code SBIN0012128 जो स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंति@या, वैशाी गर, शिभाई में ऑाई भुगता करेगा। 4. यह निक mDr राशिश के भुगता के Ik’pkr~ ही उसी निदांक 05.06.2026 को दोों प्ቌकार आपसी सहमतित से निववाह निवच्छेद हेतु स्ቌम न्यायाय में आवेद ्ቚस्तुत करेगें। 5. यह निक प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू उसके पास री हुई सोे की अंगूठी एवं ॉके ट जो प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू की है, उसे वह निववाह निवच्छेद के आवेद निदांक 05.06.2026 को प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू को प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू के ्ቛारा वापस निकया जायेगा। 6. यह निक उपरो्ሹ शत के आधार पर प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 2 ्ቦीमती कृ तित साहू ्ቛारा प्ቌकार ्ቅं . 1 मुके श कु मार साहू के निवरू्ቍ दजK की गई एफ.आई.आर. ्ቅं माक 0182, निदांक 2025 पुलिस थाा देवरी, जिजा- बाोद में बी.ए. एस की धारा 296, 115 (2), 351 (3), 85, 88, 89 के संबंध में ्ቚथम अतितरिर्ሹ जिजा एवं स्ቔ न्यायाधीश जिजा बाोद के सम्ቌ ्ቚकरण ्ቅं माक 22/2026 ंनिबत है में निकसी भी ्ቚकार की कोई कायKवाही ही चाहती। यह निक उपरो्ሹ शत के mYya?ku में दोो प्ቌकार एक- दूसरे के निवरू्ቍ काूी कायKवाही करे के लिए स्वतं्ቔ रहेगें। यह निक भनिवष्य में दोो प्ቌकार एक- दूसरे के निवरू्ቍ एवं उके परिरवारों के निवरू्ቍ भी कोई काूी कायKवाही निकसी भी न्यायाय में हीं करेंगे। यह निक भनिवष्य में दोो प्ቌकार एक- दूसरे एवं परिरवारों की च या अच laifRr पर निकसी भी ्ቚकार का हक या दावा ही करेगें। 6 उभयप्ቌ इस समझौता प्ቔ की शत से सहमत हैं एवं पा के लिए कनिटब्ቍ gSa समझौता प्ቔ में दी गई शत को उन्होंे अपी स्वयं की स्वेच्छापूवKक सहमतित एवं निबा निकसी दबाव, भय एवं ाच के स्वीकार निकया गया है। उभयप्ቌ े इस समझौता प्ቔ की शत को पढ़े व समझे के Ik’pkr~ अपी स्वतं्ቔ सहमतित से परस्पर एक-दूसरे की उपቝኌस्थतित में हस्ता्ቌर कर निष्पानिदत निकया। निबासपुर (छ.ग.) निदांक 30.04.2026” 7. In view of the conditions of compromise made between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 of BNSS to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303) and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466]. 8. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- “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 7 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 the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466], has been held as under;- “29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in acceptiong the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation..…” 10. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 11. In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused person and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 12. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 582 of BNSS is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 182/2025 registered at 9 Police Station Deori, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 85 of the BNS, 2023 on 25.11.2025, the entire final report bearing No. 28/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 296, 115(2), 351(3), 85, 88, 89 of the BNS, 2023 and order taking cognizance dated 11.03.2026 with respect to the aforesaid crime number and subsequent criminal proceedings in Session Case No.22/2026 pending before the learned First Additional Session Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) against the petitioner are hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties on 30.04.2026. 13. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil