1 CGHC010352442026 2026:CGHC:39771-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2367 of 2026 1 - Teejram Pal S/o Chandram Pal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill.- Turma, Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amar Preeti Toppo W/o Teejram Pal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Vill.- Turma, Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhabiram Pal S/o Chadram Pal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vill.- Turma, Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Firantaram @ Bhjniya Pal S/o Chadram Pal, Aged About 75 Years R/o Vill.- Turma, Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate For respondent State : Mr. Somya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order On Board 11.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas,J. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 seeking quashment of the FIR No. 0493/2026 registered at Police Station – Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) for commission of KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.09.11 16:59:03 +0530 2 offence under Section 296, 115(2), 89, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 is the Husband, Petitioner No. 2 is the complainant wife, Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are brothers of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 lodged complaint on 26.08.2026 before the Police Station – Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) alleging that she solemnized marriage with petitioner No. 1 before the Additional Collector and Special Marriage Officer, Jashpur. Her husband had illicit relationship with various girls. When she objects, he used to beat her and he has carried miscarriage of her pregnancy thrice, first abortion on 29.01.2024, second on December, 2025 and third abortion 4th June, 2026 using pills. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged under Section 296, 115(2), 89, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after registration of the FIR, the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily on 01.09.2026 and the same has been submitted before the Superintendent of Police for dropping of the proceeding. She would rely on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi {Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022} and refer paragraph No. 13-14 and would pray for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that the accused have committed offence of terminating pregnancy thrice which is heinous offence as per Section 89 of the B.N.S.S. and the offence is non-compoundable offence, therefore, on 3 the basis of compromise between the parties this Court cannot permit compounding of an offence, and would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. From bare perusal of the facts and contents of the FIR, it is quite vivid that the FIR has been registered for commission of offence of causing miscarriage without women’s consent, which is a heinous offence. Therefore, before quashing of the criminal proceeding, at the initial stage, this Court has to consider the gravity of the offence. This issue has already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & others {(2019) 5 SCC 688} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves” 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, gravity of the offence and the law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also considering the fact that offence does not fall within the Schedule 359 of the B.N.S.S. We are of the view that at this juncture, the quashment of the offences on the basis of compromise is not tenable. 8. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. sans merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Deshmukh