1 CGHC010295412026 2026:CGHC:34048-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2053 of 2026 Dushayant Kaoushik S/o Shri Prahalad Kaoushik, aged about 49 Years R/o Village Gali No. 02, Devi Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O.P.S. Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shilpa Kaushik W/o Late Shri Harish Kumar Kaushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Raipur Road Parsada, Beside UCO Bank, P.S. Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, 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. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant. 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 prayer : “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 171/2019 registered at P.S. Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) registered on 19.02.2019 for the offence punishable U/s 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of I.P.C., charge sheet No. 109/2019 dated 23.02.2019 filed for the offences punishable U/s 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of I.P.C., order of taking cognizance dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Trial Court, order of framing of charge against the petitioner dated 24.01.2023 and may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur wherein the application for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise has been rejected, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No. 2/complainant lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 171/2019 at Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur on 19.02.2019 alleging that she is working as a Scientist at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bilaspur. It was alleged that on 25.10.2018, when she had gone to join her duties at the said institution, the petitioner, who was working as the Chief Doctor, allegedly stared at her with bad intention, made obscene remarks, attempted to touch her hands and continuously stalked her within the college premises. It was further alleged that she had been subjected to such harassment 3 since 25.10.2018 and, despite making a complaint before the departmental authorities, being dissatisfied with the action taken, she approached the police authorities. On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, Police Station Chakarbhatha registered FIR No. 171/2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the competent Court on 23.02.2019. On the basis of the said charge sheet, Criminal Case No. 835/2019 was registered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and cognizance was taken on 01.03.2019. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner on 24.01.2023 and the criminal proceedings remained pending before the learned trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise on 29.10.2025 out of their own free will and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. In view of the settlement, both parties jointly filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking closure of the proceedings; however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 15.11.2025 on the ground that the offences involved are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal proceedings despite the settlement between the parties, the petitioner has approached 4 this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, order dated 15.11.2025 and all consequential proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 835/2019 in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant has been amicably settled. It was submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered into a compromise dated 29.10.2025 voluntarily and out of their own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. The complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings further. It was further submitted that both the parties are working in the same department and, after settlement, cordial and harmonious relations have been restored between them. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that although the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding Section 528 of the BNNS) are not restricted by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. It was contended that this Hon'ble Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the parties have settled their disputes 5 and where continuation of the prosecution would serve no purpose except causing unnecessary hardship and harassment to the accused. It was, therefore, prayed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 171/2019, charge sheet, order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and the entire proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 835/2019 be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been amicably settled by way of compromise dated 29.10.2025, which has been executed voluntarily and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the FIR, charge sheet and consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed, as she does not wish to pursue the matter further. It was submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties and restoration of cordial relations, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to unnecessary harassment to both the parties. Therefore, it was prayed that this Hon'ble Court may allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the present 6 petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 171/2019 registered at Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, charge sheet filed pursuant thereto, order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, whereby the application for compromise was rejected, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 835/2019. 9. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2/complainant had lodged the FIR alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by the learned trial Court. However, during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute by executing a compromise dated 29.10.2025. The said compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Respondent No. 2 has appeared and supported the compromise and has categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 10. The learned trial Court rejected the application for compromise only on the ground that the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to 7 Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) are not limited or controlled by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The High Court, in appropriate cases, can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled their dispute and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially of a private nature and the continuation of the proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the parties have resolved their dispute and the possibility of conviction is remote, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments have also been reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688. 12. In the present case, the dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are working in the same department, and the complainant herself has expressed her unwillingness to continue with the prosecution. Considering the settlement between the parties and the changed circumstances, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. 8 Continuation of the criminal proceedings would only result in unnecessary harassment to the parties and would not advance the cause of justice. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, despite settlement between the parties, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 171/2019 registered at Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, the consequential charge sheet, order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and the entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 835/2019 pending before the learned trial Court are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra