1 CGHC010261852026 2026:CGHC:34054-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2059 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Vedram Aged About 37 Years R/o Hafa Sakri, House No. 90, Ward No. 07, Tiwari Para No. 01, Police Station And Sub Tehsil Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. Pin 495003. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Sakri, Police Station Sakri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur, C.G. Pin 495003 2 - Arti Yadav W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged About 29 Years Presently R/o C/o Santosh Kumar Yadav, Village Hardikala Tona, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, C.G. Pin 495001. ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay K, Deshmukh along with Ms. Tejaswi Mandavi, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay K, Deshmukh along with Ms. Tejaswi Mandavi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “It is therefore, prayed that FIR dated 19/06/2019 CRIME No./193/2019 offence u/s 498(A) IPC and Charge Sheet Annexure C/1, Ann. C/2 and the impugned order dated 09/10/2025 Annexure C/3 passed by the JMFC Bilha Bilaspur and also the proceedings taken by the JMFC Bilha Bilaspur including the order of taking cognizance against the present applicant/Accused Manoj Kumar Yadav may kindly be set aside for ends of justice.” 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the respondent No.2 Arti Yadav filed complaint against the application husband Manoj Kumar Yadav, hence the FIR dated 19.06.2019 has been registered as Crime No. 193/2019 under Section 498A of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha. The respondent No.2 and applicant have collectively filed an application under Section 320 of CrPC before concerned trial Court on the ground of settlement deed dated 31.05.2025 and out of 09 cases, 08 cases have already been resolved, but the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.10.2025 on the ground that offence punishable under Section 498A is not compoundable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, rejecting the joint application under Section 320 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is unsustainable in law. It was contended that although the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved all their matrimonial disputes by executing a settlement deed dated 31.05.2025. Pursuant to the said settlement, out of nine litigations pending between the parties, eight cases have already been disposed of, and the present criminal case alone survives. In such circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to compound the offence under Section 498A IPC under Section 320 CrPC. However, such statutory limitation on the power of the trial Court does not curtail the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court to quash the criminal proceedings where the dispute has been amicably settled and continuation of the prosecution would be futile. It was, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, and quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 193/2019 in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application filed 4 under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is admittedly non-compoundable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: - “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. 5 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.” 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved all their matrimonial disputes by executing a settlement deed dated 31.05.2025. Pursuant to the said settlement, out of nine litigations pending between the parties, eight cases have already been disposed of, and the present criminal case alone survives. In such circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh and Narinder 6 Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS can quash the criminal proceedings and the FIR as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by means of compromise dated 31.05.2025. 9. In view of the same, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha arising out of Crime No. 193/2019 registered at Police Station, Sirgitti, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) under Section 498A of the IPC are hereby set aside and quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra