1 2026:CGHC:16342-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 61 of 2026 1 - Smt. Fiza Raza W/o Moh. Irfan Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Moudahapara Sunil Furniture Gali, Police Station- Moudahapara District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sahil Ahmed S/o Kadir Ahmed Aged About 25 Years R/o Moudahapara Sunil Furniture Gali, Police Station- Moudahapara District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Risabh Asrani S/o Anil Asrani Aged About 28 Years R/o Devendra Nagar Sector- 3, Police Station- Devendra Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Waris Khan S/o Hatim Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Afroj Baag, Beside Satish Provision Stores Moudahapara Police Station- Moudahapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home/ Police Mahanadi Mantralaya Police Station- Rakhi, Atal Nagar New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station - Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.10 17:49:43 +0530 2 5 - Mohammad Irfan Khan S/o Israel Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Afroz Baag, Moudahapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For State For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, 09 .04.2026 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the FIR bearing crime no. 479/2025, dated 04.10.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) offence punishable U/s 281, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and further may kindly be please to quash the entire challan bearing No. 468/2025 dated 02.12.2025 for the offences punishable U/s 281, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109, 3(5) 3 of B.N.S. 2023 (during investigation Section 109 of B.N.S. 2023 was added) (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the 10-12-2025 impugned order dated 10.12.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding as criminal case no. 45220/2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Fiza Raza & others" (Annexure-P/2). 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.10.2025, near Ambedkar Square, the respondent No. 5/complainant, while travelling with his friend Poonam Mishra, was allegedly hit by the petitioners’ car, following which the petitioners are stated to have abused and assaulted the complainant and his friend, causing injuries on their head, hand and ear. On the basis of the said oral complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 479/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offences under Sections 115(2), 281, 296, 3(5), 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, and subsequently Section 109 was added during investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet No. 468/2025 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on 02.12.2025, who took cognizance on 10.12.2025, and since Section 109 BNS is triable by the 4 Court of Sessions, the matter was committed on 17.12.2025 to the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, where it has been registered as Sessions Case No. 425/2025 and is presently pending for arguments on charge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present case is a clear outcome of matrimonial discord between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 5, who are legally wedded spouses but are living separately due to serious differences arising out of the respondent’s alleged extramarital relationship, which has given rise to multiple disputes and counter complaints between the parties. The prosecution story is wholly misconceived and contrary to the actual sequence of events, as it was the respondent who, upon being confronted, drove rashly, caused the accident, and was subsequently assaulted by an auto driver and bystanders, which is also evident from his own statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., medical report reflecting only simple injuries, and absence of any recovery of weapon from the petitioners. The inclusion of offence under Section 109 of BNS is wholly unjustified and an abuse of process, as neither the nature of injuries nor the alleged acts satisfy the ingredients of attempt to murder. 4. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5, who are husband and wife. The allegations leading to the registration of the FIR appear to be an outcome of strained marital relations, and multiple criminal cases were 5 instituted by both sides against each other and during pendency of the said criminal case, this Court, vide order dated 30.01.2026, referred the matter to the Mediation Centre in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. Pursuant thereto, the parties participated in mediation proceedings on various dates, and ultimately, as per the mediation report dated 06.04.2026, the dispute has been amicably resolved. The terms and conditions of the mediation report is reproduced hereinbelow:- "1- यह कि] पक्षर मां &2 द्वार पक्षर मां &1  सभी स ने एवं चां दी  आभीषण जो उस स्त्रीधने  रूप मां किनेह  समांय मांय पक्ष स प्राप्त हुए थे] उने सभी  दिदीने  01-04-2026  रयप'र छ0ग0 मां दी दिदीय गय ह*] जिजोस पक्षर मां &1 द्वार प्राप्त र लि-य गय ह*। इस लि-य दी ने पक्षर द्वार आपस सहमांतित स इररनेमां भी र लि-य गय ह* और आभीषण 2 सचां भी उसमां लि-खी गई ह*। पक्षर मां &1 द्वार अपने आभीषण  स्वंर र लि-य गय ह* तथे भीकिवंष्य मां इस लि-य अथेवं अन्य आभीषण  लि-य पक्षर क्रमां &2 अथेवं उने परिरवंर वं- स  ई मां ग नेह: रग। इस इररनेमां 2 प्रातित दी ने पक्षर ने मांध्यस्थेत  न्द्र मां मांध्यस्थे  समांक्ष हस्तक्षर र प्राप्त किय ह*। 2& यह कि] दिदीने  02-04-2026 एवं 05-04-2026  पक्षर मां &2 द्वार पक्षर मां &1  समांस्त समांने उस स्त्रीधने  रूप मां किनेह  समांय मांय पक्ष स प्राप्त हुए थे] उस भी पक्षर क्रमां &1 द्वार वंपस र दिदीय गय ह*। जिजोस पक्षर क्रमां &1 द्वार प्राप्त र लि-य गय ह=। इस लि-य दी ने पक्षर द्वार आपस सहमांतित स इररनेमां भी र लि-य गय ह* और समांने 2 सचां भी उसमां लि-खी गई ह*। पक्षर मां &1 द्वार अपने समांने  स्वंर र लि-य गय ह* तथे भीकिवंष्य मां इस लि-य अथेवं अन्य समांने  लि-य पक्षर मां &2 अथेवं उने परिरवंर वं- स  ई मां ग नेह: रग। इस इररनेमां 2 प्रातित दी ने पक्षर ने मांध्यस्थेत  न्द्र मां मांध्यस्थे  समांक्ष हस्तक्षर र प्राप्त किय ह*। 3& यह कि] इररनेमां मां उल्-खिखीत रलि@ रूपय 8]94]572@& आठ -खी चांBरनेबे हजोर प चां सB बेहत्तर रूपय किवंलिभीन्ने मांदी मां पक्षर मां &1 द्वार पक्षर मां &2 स प्राप्त रने ह*। इस प्रार पक्षर क्रमां &2  3]42]566@& तने -खी ब्य-स हजोर प चां सB छप्पने रूपय किवंलिभीन्ने मांदी मां पक्षर मां  1 स प्राप्त रने ह*। @ष रलि@ 8]94]572 & 3]42]566 = 5]52]016@& प चां -खी बेवंने हजोर स -ह रूपय पक्षर क्रमां &2 पक्षर मां &1  आजो दिदीने  06-04-2026  मांध्यस्थेत  न्द्र मां नेगदी रलि@  रूप मां प्रादीने 2 जो रह ह*] जिजोस पक्षर क्रमां &1 द्वार प्राप्त र लि-य गय ह*। 4& यह कि] उपर क्त समांझौBत  आधर पर पक्षर मां -1 किनेम्नेलि-खिखीत प्रारण  वंपस -ग& 6 (I) Crime No. 85/2025 under section 85,3(3) BNS, Criminal Case No. 909/2026 pending in court of JMFC, Raipur (C.G.). (State of C.G. Vs. Md. Irfan Khan & Shahnaz Parveen Khan). (II) Crime No. 212/2025 Police Station Moudhapara for offence under section 296,115(2), 351(2) BNS (State of C.G. Vs. Md. Irfan Khan) Charge Sheet not filed. (III) Crime No. 480/2025 Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) offence under section 115(2), 296, 351(2) BNS. Criminal Case No. 695/2025 (State of C.G. Vs. Md. Irfan Khan) before JMFC, Raipur (C.G.). 5& यह कि] उपरक्त समांझौBत  आधर पर पक्षर मां &2 किनेम्नेलि-खिखीत प्रारण  वंपस -गI& (I) Crime No. 479/2025 Police Station Civil Lines under section 281,296,115(2), 351(2), 3(5) 109 BNS Registration No. 425/2025 (State of C.G. Vs. Smr. Fiza Raza & Ors.) pending in court of District & Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.). (II) Crime No. 211/2025 offence under section 296,115(2), 351(2), 3(5) BNS Registration No. 194/2026 (State of C.G. Vs. Kadir Ahmad Raza & Ors.). 6& यह कि] पक्षर क्रमां &1 एवं पक्षर मां &2 ने यह किनेणJय लि-य ह* कि वं आपस सहमांतित स त-  लि-य सक्षमां न्यय-य मां आवंदीने प@ र त- 2 किKक्क्र2 प्राप्त र ग। त- हने पर मांहर 2 रलि@ जो कि किनेह नेमां मां उल्-खिखीत 2 गई ह* वंह: रलि@ पक्षर मां &2 द्वार पक्षर मां &1  दी जोएग। पक्षर मां &1 द्वार पक्षर मां &2  किवंरूद्ध भीरण- पषण  लि-य ई भी वंदी किस भी न्यय-य मां प्रास्त'त नेह: किय जोएग। 7& यह कि] पक्षर मां &1 एवं पक्षर क्रमां &2  नेबेलि-ग प'त्री भी ह* जो वंतJमांने मां अपने मांत पक्षर क्रमां &1  पस ह*।  वं- प'त्री स स बे तिधत भीरण-पषण] अलिभीरक्ष vFkok vU; fdlh ekeys ds fy;s nksuksa i{kdkj ekuuh; l{ke U;k;ky; esa okn nk;j dj ldrs gSA 5. The mediation report clearly indicates that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another, 2013 (4) SCC 58, Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. 7 State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, - (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. 8. In Narinder Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, holding that where the offences are predominantly private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, the proceedings can be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “10. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. 11. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. 12. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held: 8 “8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held: “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” 13. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same 9 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.” 10. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- 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 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 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 10 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. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the object of law is not only to punish the culprit but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. The main purpose of which is to settle down in life and live peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so that the parties may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process, the parties lose their precious years in attending their cases in different Courts. 12. In the present case, the allegations are essentially personal in nature, arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The injuries alleged are simple in nature and there is no element of heinous crime or grave societal impact. The continuation of criminal proceedings, despite settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 11 13. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra), the FIR bearing Crime No. 479/2025 dated 04.10.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) is hereby quashed. The charge-sheet bearing No. 468/2025 dated 02.12.2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 425/2025 pending before the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, are also quashed. The order dated 10.12.2025 taking cognizance is hereby set aside. 14. The instant writ petition is allowed. 15. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at before the Mediation Centre. 16. No order as to costs.- 17. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika