1 CGHC010275542026 2026:CGHC:31839-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1908 of 2026 1. Aman Sahu S/o Sanjay Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o House No 146, Near Shanti Nikatam College, Govindgarh Near Mahek Colony Kamptee Road Uppalwadi Nagpur Maharashtra 2. Sanjay Sahu S/o Late Kammulal Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o House No 146, Near Shanti Nikatam College, Govindgarh Near Mahek Colony Kamptee Road Uppalwadi Nagpur Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Mahila Thana Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Varsha Sahu W/o Aman Sahu Aged About 25 Years Presently Residing At C/o Deepak Sahu Ward No 43, Near Kali Mandir Ramayana Chowk Chantidih Police Station Sarkanda District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Complainant In The Instant Crime) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sashwat Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.27 19:01:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sashwat Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. 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 allow the instant petition and consequently extend the time granted for compliance with the order dated 20.04.2026 passed in CRMP No. 652 of 2026 by permitting the petitioners to pay/hand over the balance settlement amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 in terms of the compromise recorded by this Hon’ble Court, and pass such order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully submits that the petitioners had earlier preferred CRMP No. 652 of 2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of the First Information Report dated 01.11.2025 bearing Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said petition came to be disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.04.2026 in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. In terms of the compromise, which was duly accepted and recorded by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners were required to pay the balance settlement amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 on or before 15.06.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners, with a bona fide intention to comply with the order of this Hon'ble Court within the stipulated period, had arranged the entire balance settlement amount well before the prescribed date and accordingly got a Demand Draft prepared on 12.06.2026. However, owing to a genuine and inadvertent misinterpretation of the order dated 20.04.2026, the Demand Draft was mistakenly prepared in the name of the Family Court, Bilaspur instead of respondent No. 2. He further contended that the mistake was purely clerical and bona fide, without 4 any intention whatsoever to evade or delay compliance with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The Demand Draft dated 12.06.2026 evidencing the petitioners' readiness and willingness to honour the settlement forms part of the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that when the matter was taken up before the learned Family Court on 15.06.2026, the aforesaid inadvertent mistake was immediately brought to the notice of the petitioners. Without any loss of time, the petitioners cancelled the earlier Demand Draft and promptly obtained a fresh Demand Draft for the very same amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the learned Family Court and produced the fresh Demand Draft on 22.06.2026. However, by that time the period fixed by this Hon'ble Court for compliance had expired on 15.06.2026, and the learned Family Court expressed its inability to accept the Demand Draft in the absence of an order passed by this Hon'ble Court extending the time granted for compliance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically submits that the conduct of the petitioners unmistakably demonstrates their bona fides. At no point did the petitioners attempt to resile from the compromise or avoid compliance with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. On the contrary, the petitioners had arranged the entire settlement amount within the stipulated period and the only impediment in compliance was the inadvertent preparation of the Demand Draft in the wrong name, which was immediately rectified upon being pointed out. The 5 subsequent procurement of the corrected Demand Draft further establishes the petitioners' continuous readiness and willingness to honour every term of the settlement. He also submitted that the delay in completing the formal compliance is purely technical, unintentional and occasioned by a bona fide mistake. The petitioners have neither derived any advantage from the delay nor acted in disregard of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The circumstances clearly establish that the delay was beyond the control of the petitioners and cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as willful, deliberate or contumacious. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to respondent No. 2 if a reasonable extension of time is granted, particularly when the entire settlement amount has already been arranged and remains ready for payment. On the contrary, refusal to extend the time would frustrate the very object of the compromise, which has already been voluntarily entered into by the parties and accepted by this Hon'ble Court while disposing of the earlier petition. Such a hyper-technical approach would defeat the ends of justice and render the settlement ineffective despite the petitioners having substantially complied with its spirit. 10. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Hon'ble Court may graciously exercise its inherent jurisdiction to extend the time granted under the order dated 6 20.04.2026 for depositing the balance settlement amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of respondent No. 2. Since the delay has occurred solely on account of a bona fide and inadvertent mistake, and the petitioners have consistently exhibited their readiness and willingness to comply with the settlement, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 12. From the record, it is evident that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing CRMP No. 652 of 2026 under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the FIR in question. During the pendency of the said petition, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court, where the parties amicably resolved their dispute by entering into a settlement on 16.04.2026. In view of the said settlement, this Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 20.04.2026. As per the terms of the settlement, which were duly recorded by this Court, the petitioners were directed to pay the balance settlement amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to respondent No.2 on or before 15.06.2026. 13. The material placed on record further reveals that the petitioners had arranged the settlement amount within the time stipulated by this Court and had also obtained a Demand Draft on 12.06.2026. However, owing to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, the Demand Draft came to be prepared in the name of the learned Family Court, Bilaspur 7 instead of respondent No.2. Immediately after the mistake came to their notice, the petitioners cancelled the earlier Demand Draft and obtained a fresh Demand Draft in the name of respondent No.2. However, by then, the period granted under the order dated 20.04.2026 had already expired and, therefore, the learned Family Court expressed its inability to accept the Demand Draft without an appropriate order passed by this Court. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners had taken all necessary steps to comply with the order dated 20.04.2026 within the stipulated period and that the delay occurred solely on account of a bona fide and inadvertent mistake in preparing the Demand Draft in the wrong name. The mistake was rectified without any undue delay by obtaining a fresh Demand Draft in the name of respondent No.2. The conduct of the petitioners does not indicate any deliberate or willful disregard of the order passed by this Court. Rather, it demonstrates their continuous readiness and willingness to honour the terms of the settlement. In such circumstances, a purely technical lapse should not be permitted to defeat a lawful settlement voluntarily entered into by the parties and accepted by this Court. 15. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the time granted to the petitioners for compliance of the order dated 20.04.2026 is extended by a further period of 10 days from today. 16. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 8 proceedings before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur are presently fixed on 19.08.2026. Since the petitioners are now in possession of the Demand Draft prepared in the name of respondent No.2 and the extension of time has been granted by this Court, it is considered appropriate to prepone the said date so that the settlement may be given effect to without any further delay. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur on 06.08.2026, and the learned Family Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. 17. The petitioners shall ensure that respondent No.2 is duly informed about this order and the date fixed by this Court so as to enable her to appear before the learned Family Court on 06.08.2026. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 19. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for information and necessary compliance. A copy of this order shall also be sent to respondent No.2. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan