1 2026:CGHC:897-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1899 of 2022 1 - Smt. Minu Devi Trivedi W/o Bharat Nath Trivedi Aged About 59 Years R/o Dharni Chaapar Police Station Mairwa District Siwan (Bihar) 2 - Bharat Nath Trivedi S/o Late Vikaramaditya Trivedi Aged About 63 Years R/o Dharni Chaapar Police Station Mairwa District Siwan (Bihar) 3 - Smt. Sarita Devi W/o Shri Dhruv Nath Trivedi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dharni Chapar, Post Badgaon, Police Station Mairwa, District Siwan (Bihar) 4 - Chandan Trivedi S/o Shri Dhruv Nath Trivedi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dharni Chapar, Post Badgaon, Police Station Mairwa, District Siwan (Bihar) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O9cer, Police Of Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Saloni Mishra W/o Bhaskar Trivedi Aged About 25 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma , J. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.01.07 19:16:13 +0530 2 07 . 01 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A., appearing for respondents No. 1 and Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The instant CRMP has been ?led by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition by setting aside and also quash charge-sheet of crime No. 318/2019 registered at PS Urla, District Raipur (CG) and also quashing for criminal proceeding of criminal case No. 5266/2020 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in the interest of justice. 3. Facts of the case are that the present petitioners are being roped in FIR No. 318 of 2019 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) for oAences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The marriage between son of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and Respondent No.2 (complainant) was solemnized on 22.02.2019 at Ranchi, Jharkhand, according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the respondent resided with the son of the petitioners No. 1 & 2 for only about 5–6 days and thereafter returned to her parental home at Raipur citing personal reasons. She later returned to her matrimonial home, tendered a written apology, and stayed for a few more days before again leaving for 3 her parental house at Raipur, where she has been residing since then. Despite several eAorts by the son of petitioners No. 1 & 2 and his family members to reconcile and persuade her to resume cohabitation, the respondent refused to return, and subsequently, she lodged the impugned FIR making general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner and his family members. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet do not, even prima facie, disclose the essential ingredients necessary for constituting the oAences under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, made only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioners, and do not constitute any cognizable oAence. He would also submit that during the pendency of proceedings, the son of the petitioners No. 1 & 2 (husband of complainant) and the respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement deed dated 05.03.2025, a duly executed settlement deed dated 05.03.2025 has been annexed with the present petition, in terms of which both the parties have also ?led a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the Family Court, Raipur. In view of the said amicable settlement and 4 the ongoing mutual consent divorce proceedings, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and would serve no fruitful purpose. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 has ?led a CRMP bearing No. 3243/2025 in which proceedings of the case has been quashed as the matter has been settled between the paties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant would not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and agrees with the submission that the settlement has been entered between the parties. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the settlement deed (copy of which is Annexed as Annexure- D/1 dated 05.03.2025) has been entered between the parties and the husband of the respondent No. 2 has ?led CRMP bearing No. 3243/2025 in which the proceedings of the case has also been quashed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute being purely matrimonial in nature, continuation of the criminal 5 proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, criminal proceedings of criminal case No. 5266/2020 and the charge-sheet bearing No. 51/2020 along with the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2020 arising out of FIR No. 318/2019 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) for oAences under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is allowed with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti