1 CGHC010184192026 2026:CGHC:27673-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1354 of 2026 1 - Dharmendra Sen S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Sen Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Shaktipara Balodabazar, Police Station City Kotwali , Balodabazar District- Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Purushottam Sen S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Sen Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Chandraprakash Sen S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Sen Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Vedprakash Sen S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Sen Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Dageshwar Sen S/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Sen Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Chameli Sen W/o Shri Purushottam Sen Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Pardeshin Sen W/o Late Shri Ramkrishna Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Sakari, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.07 10:53:40 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Simga District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Premlata Sen W/o Dharmendra Sen Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Sahu Bhavan Simga, District- Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Shandhya Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06 .07.2026 1. Heard Ms. A. Shandhya Rao, on behalf of Mr. Vikram Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate, 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 17-03-2022 under Section 498-A/34, relating to Crime No.117/2022 registered at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and also seeking quashment of final report No.316/2022 dated 07-10-2022 for the offences under Section 498-A/34, 294, 506-II of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 13.12.2024, and application under section 239 of CrPC claiming discharge has been rejected vide order dated 03.09.2025 and framing of charge dated 16.03.2026 against the petitioners also entire criminal proceeding in criminal 3 case No.3653/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) (Annexure P-01) 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. The present case in brief is that the present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 (husband) and respondent No.2 (wife), who were married on 06.07.2018 and were blessed with a daughter. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners subjected her to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, on the basis of which Crime No.117/2022 was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. During the proceedings, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and thereafter the police filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 07.10.2022 before the competent Court. According to the petitioners, no act of cruelty was ever committed by them, the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature arising out of differences between the spouses, and respondent No.2 voluntarily started residing at her parental home along with her daughter. The petitioners had earlier filed CRMP No.681 of 2026, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, and therefore the present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature arising out of differences between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing with her parents along with her daughter. The petitioners have never subjected the complainant to cruelty or harassment, 4 and petitioner No.1 had even initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in an effort to resume cohabitation, which ultimately resulted in a compromise between the parties. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 to 7 never shared a common household with the complainant after the compromise and have been unnecessarily implicated on the basis of bald and general allegations. The FIR was also lodged after an unexplained delay, which further casts doubt on the prosecution case. Therefore, the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel submits that, pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by this Court, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre with a specific direction that petitioner No.1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Mediation Centre, which was to be paid to respondent No.2 upon her appearance. However, as is evident from the mediation report dated 30.05.2026, the petitioner No.1 failed to comply with the aforesaid direction and did not deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Mediation Centre. It is further submitted that the mediation proceedings could not fructify and the record was accordingly returned by the Mediation Centre for further proceedings. In these circumstances, the petitioner No.1 has failed to comply with the specific direction issued by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. By order dated 13.05.2026, while taking note of the fact that the dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was matrimonial in nature, an endeavour was made by this Court to facilitate an amicable settlement by referring the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court. As a condition precedent for giving effect to the said order, petitioner No.1 was 5 specifically directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Mediation Centre, which was to be paid to respondent No.2 upon her appearance before the Mediation Centre. It was further directed that only after production of the receipt evidencing such deposit before the trial Court would the order become operative. 8. From the mediation report dated 30.05.2026, which has been taken on record, it is evident that petitioner No.1 failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- despite the specific direction issued by this Court. Consequently, the mediation proceedings could not proceed and the record was returned by the Mediation Centre for further proceedings. The petitioner has neither complied with the condition imposed by this Court nor placed any material on record explaining such non-compliance or seeking extension of time. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that when a litigant seeks discretionary relief under Section 482 of the CrPC and this Court grants an opportunity for amicable settlement subject to compliance with a specific condition, such direction is required to be complied with in its letter and spirit. The deliberate failure of petitioner No.1 to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- as directed demonstrates non-compliance with the order of this Court, disentitling the petitioners from seeking further indulgence in the present proceedings. 10. In view of the aforesaid admitted non-compliance with the order dated 13.05.2026, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the challenge to the FIR, charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of failure of petitioner No.1 to comply with the condition imposed by this Court for reference of the matter to mediation. 6 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika