1 CGHC010048592024 2026:CGHC:31934-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 648 of 2024 1 - Jyotirmoy Mazumder S/o Lt. Surojit Mazumder Aged About 32 Years Anupama Housing Complex E-6, Vip Road, Baguihati Kolkata- 700052, Post And P.S.-Baguihati. 2 - Shipra Mazumder W/o Lt. Surojit Masumder Aged About 56 Years R/o Anupama Housing Complex E-6 Vip Road, Baguihati, Kolkata- 700052. P.S.- Baguihati. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Ms. Mompiya Sanyal Ex-Wife Of Jyotirmoy Mazumder Aged About 29 Years Presently Residing At And Permane303 3rd Floor, Golden Tower, 15/16 Shankar Nagar, Indore, M.P-452018 Also Flat No. 605a Krisnas Paradise Sorena Raipur Chhattisgarh, Dist.- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Arnab Jyotidas, Shri Shailesh Patel and Shri Ankit Singh, Advocates. For State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 27.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.28 17:42:59 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and after considering the above Facts and Grounds may Quash the FIR being no-32/2023 and Charge Sheet being no- 41/2023 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Smt. Deepti Lakra, Ld.7th Addl. JMFC in Raipur Chhattisgarh bearing case of State -vs- Jyotirmay Majumdar and Ors, in case number 9656/2023, Mahali Thana Raipur (women police station Raipur) F.I.R no 32/2023 dated 26/02/2023 vide Charge Sheet No- 41/23 whereby the Charges U/s 498-A and 34 of IPC against the petitioners, standing upon on feet of falsehood, in the interest of justice.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 2019 and there is no child from their wedlock. It is alleged that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the wife of petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial house only after 6 days of the marriage and thereafter she did not return. The respondent No.2 is a permanent resident of Raipur. Alleging of her being subjected to torture with demand of dowry, the complainant firstly filed Domestic Violence case in the court of Judicial Magistrate vide Case No.346/2022, and thereafter she lodged an FIR No.32 of 2023 on 26.02.2023 at Mahila Police Station, Raipur for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC, in which charge sheet being No.41/2023 has been framed which is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The petitioner-Husband filed a suit for decree of divorce at competent court at West Bengal in the year, 2021 where the respondent-wife made her appearance, however, knowing pendency of divorce petition at West Bengal, she also filed an application for dissolution of marriage at Family Court, Raipur, in which 3 the petitioner could not appear and an exparte decree was passed on 28.10.2023. 3 The counsel for the parties have jointly stated that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the court vide settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.06.2025, copy of which has also been filed along with covering memo dated 10.07.2026. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of said settlement dated 26.06.2025, the respondent No.2-wife has also withdrawn her transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of Misc. Suit No.210 of 20245 filed by petitioner No.1-Husband, from West Bengal to the appropriate/competent Civil Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Thus, they may be permitted to compound the offence. 4 The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute have not been disputed by the counsel for the private respondents. They would also submit that a deed of compromise have also been executed between the parties on 26.06.2025. 5 The copy of settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.06.2025 has been filed by the petitioners along with covering memo dated 10.07.2026. The terms of settlement are as under : “THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (which will be referred herein after as "MOU" for brevity) made and executed on 26/06/2025 at Raipur (C.G.) by and between the parties as follows:- Ms. Mompiya Sanyal, D/o Shri Kunal Sanyal, aged 32 years, Caste Hindu, R/o Flat No.605, Krishna Paradise, Sarona Raipur (C.G.) Pin No. 492010 (herein after referred to as FIRST PARTY), AND Mr. Jyotirmoy Mazumdar, S/o Late Surajit Mazumdar, aged 33 years, Caste- Hindu, presently residing at 2A, 105, Shilpitha Splender, Mahadevpura, Bangalore, Karnataka also permanently 4 residing at 42, E/6 Anupama Housing Complex, VIP Road, Kolkata (West Bengal) Pin No. 700052 (hereinafter referred to as SECOND PARTY) Whereas both the parties herein are desirous of enter into an agreement by way of mutual understanding and co-operation in order to avoid any conflict and/or divergence of their mutual commitment to each others to run their future life smoothly:- And whereas both the parties have decided to put the terms and condition of understanding of mutual covenants in writing and thus have agreed and executed as follows:- NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCEMENT AND DURATIONS:- 1.1. This agreement shall commence from the date, month and year as stated herein above and shall be in force till the date of passing of orders and judgments in all the cases which has been filed by the First Party and Second Party against each other as well as rest of the life. and the details of which is as under: (i) FIR bearing Crime No.32/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur on 26/02/2023 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodge against the Second Party together with the mother of the Second Party namely Shipra Mazumdar which is pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur by the First Party. (ii) Criminal case Under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act bearing Miscellaneous Case No.346/2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) by the First Party. (iii) Maintenance Case filed Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing Miscellaneous Case No.924/2023 pending before the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) by the First Party. (iv) Criminal Defamation Case filed by the Second Party against the First Party which is pending in the court of 7th Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Case No.44/2024. (v) Civil Defamation Case filed by the Second Party against the First Party which is pending in the court of 1 Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous No.210/2024. Suit 2. TERMS AND CONDITION OF THIS MOU:-That by this agreement both the parties undertake to sign jointly this MOU with the following terms and conditions:- 2.1. That both the parties are jointly and mutually decided and came in conclusion that the Second Party will pay One Time Permanent Alimony to the First Party namely Ms. Mompiya Sanyal a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand) only by way of two installments mentioned in schedule below and since the parties have agreed for the same this mutual agreement has been amicably signed between both the parties. 5 2.2. That the parties are jointly decided to solve their on going matrimonial dispute, intending of that both the parties are jointly decided to withdraw all cases filed by the First Party and the Second Party vice versa which is pending and running in above mentioned courts at Raipur, Chhattisgarh as well as Barasat, 24 Pgs, North West Bengal. By these, the First Party also undertake to put her efforts to modify the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India so can the that the Second Party will withdraw the cases, easily, which is pending before the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Case No.44/2024 and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Suit No.210/2024. 2.3. That both the parties by their mutual discussion came in conclusion and further agreed that soon after the signing this MOU, the first party firstly withdraw the pending Criminal case Under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act bearing Miscellaneous Case No.346/2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) and Maintenance Case filed Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing Miscellaneous Case No.924/2023 pending before the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) and on the same day, the Second Party will promptly pay to the first party a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) through RTGS/NEFT. 2.4. That, after modification of the Interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2842/2024 and Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.724/2024, the Second Party will take prompt steps for withdrawal of the cases which has been filed by the Second Party against the First Party in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Case No.44/2024 and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Suit No.210/2024 within one (1) month from the date of modification of the Interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Second Party is under an obligation to provide the certified copy of the application filed by the Second Party for withdrawal of the above mentioned cases at Barasat, West Bengal and the certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court at Barasat, West Bengal with respect to withdrawal of the above mentioned cases. If the Second Party in spite of the modification order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India fails to withdraw the cases at Barasat, West Bengal within the stipulated time than the First Party is not required to refund the amount of First installment of Permanent Alimony Amount and the First Party will not bound to co-operate further for disposal of case of the FIR hearing Crime No.32/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur on 26/02/2023 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6 2.5. 6 2.5. That, since both the parties have decided to withdraw all the cases, therefore, the case which in pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Case No.44/2024 and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal bearing Miscellaneous Suit No.210/2024 within one month from the date of signing this MOU, in para 2.4, for which the second party will put all their efforts to do the same, in spite that if the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal will refuse to entertain the matter on urgent basis and refuse by pronouncing that the matter will be taken up on the date fixed for hearing then this agreement will continue to be in effect and the first party will not blame for the same to the second party. The second party will then move for withdrawal of the case promptly on the date fixed for hearing in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal so that the cases will be disposed of. The Second Party will provide the certified copy of the applications moved by the Second Party before the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal and certified copy of the order passed by the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal in the urgent hearing application and withdrawal application. 2.6. That, by this agreement it had been decided by and between the parties that the remaining balance of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs only) out of the total consideration value of Rs.22,50,000 (Rs. Twenty-Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid by the second party towards the first party by way of Demand Draft of the date when the matter will be listed and disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.648/2024, but it will be the duty and obligation of the Second Party to file the appropriate application along with the copy of this MOU and affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and take prompt steps for listing of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.648/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh within 1.5 months from the date of withdrawal of the cases from the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Barasat, West Bengal in Court 7th, ADJ, Barasat, West Bengal and in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat, West Bengal. 2.7. That, the First Party hereby undertake to that after receiving the first payment/installment out of the final decided amount of permanent alimony, will not be asking or force to the Second Party for any other payment from the of remaining part/balance amount until and unless the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.648/2024 will be listed and decided by the Hon'ble High Court 7 of Chhattisgarh and the FIR bearing Crime No.32/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur on 26/02/2023 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the First Party together with the mother of the Second Party namely Shipra Mazumdar is quashed. That, it will be the duty and obligation of the Second Party that the Second Party will send the photocopy of the Demand Draft of the remaining amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs Only) of the date on which the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.648/2024 will be listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, to the First Party and as soon Rs the order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of KAR Chhattisgarh for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.32/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila DIP Thana, Raipur in favour of the Second Party and the mother of the Second Party viz. Shipra Mazumdar, the Second Party will hand over the Demand Draft to the First Party immediately in the court itself. 2.9. That, by this MOU the First Party also undertake the First Party will not to make any further demand/claim or approach to the Second Party for any enhancement or future further demand of enhancement of alimony in any point of time in future, if so, that will be treat as a breach of contract and being of that the Second Party will do any proceeding/s as per law against the First Party. 2.10. That, if in case the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh refuses to quash the FIR bearing Crime No.32/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur on 26/02/2023 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 498- A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in that situation, if the first party fails to attend or present before the trial court i.e. learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) for the purpose to disposing of the criminal case Under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code, which was initiated by the first party, then the first party shall be bound to return back to pay entire amount Rs.11,50,000/- to the second party without party shall be bound to return back to pay entire amount Rs.11, 50,000/- to the second party without any delay or question and by this if the second party will not acted or taken any steps on behalf of him do or cause to do the action/steps required to for hearing of quashing of FIR in that scenario and breach the terms of this MOU the first party will not be bound to repay the partial amount which she was received from the second party as a part of the alimony first installment. 2.11. That under any unavoidable circumstances if the final date of hearing will deferred for reason beyond the control or power of both the parties herein, in that position the term and tenure of this MOU shall stand extended automatically till the date of passing fina¹ order/judgment/acquittal of criminal case initiated on the basis of the FIR bearing Crime No.02/2023 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Raipur on 26/02/2023 for the commission 8 of offence which is punishable Under Section 498-A/34 of the indian Penal Code. 2.12. 2.12. That, it is hereby also mentioned that if on date the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh will not entertain or refuse and not consider any submission related to amicable settlement and/or present development and direct the trial court for further consideration, in recourse of that both the parties will move to trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) to resolve the issue to dispose the pending order/judgement/acquittal, the Second Party will day of hand over the remaining amount (second instalmerit as full and final) towards the First Party at court premises by demand draft. proceeding or cases against other party then the other party is free to prosecute by way of appropriate proceeding including the criminal proceeding by availing his local jurisdiction. 2.14. By this MOU it is clearly understand between the parties as they now are divorcee by way of decree of divorce from the order and judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur Chhattisgarh being INDIA Etrength of that either or party have a right to start their future life in any point of time and no interference or objection of any of the party will be tenable under any circumstances. NOW BOTH THE PARTIES are voluntarily and jointly signed in presence of their respective learned advocate without any pressure and fear and getting this document notarized at Raipur, Chhattisgarh by putting their passport size photo.” 6 In view of the categorical statement made by the complainant as well as the accused/petitioners, 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 528 of BNSS, 2023 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]. 7 The Supreme Court in Gian Singh (Supra) has observed in para 49, 52, 53 and 57 as under: “49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the 9 inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 57. 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 10 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 5 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 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. 9 In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons; 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. 10 Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC is allowed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of compromise/Settlement dated 26.06.2025. The subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.9656/2023 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class,Raipur, 11 arising out of FIR being Crime No.32 of 2023 and Charge Sheet bearing No.41/2023, registered at Mahila Police Thana, Raipur, stands quashed and the petitioners, who are accused persons in that case, stand discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder