1 2026:CGHC:2111-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 124 of 2026 1 - Jitendra Singh Gour S/o Late Daal Singh Gour, Aged About 51 Years At Ward No. 16, Dau Choura, Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Details of The Parties Incorrect In P/1) 2 - Arti Singh, D/ O Late Daal Singh Gour, Aged About 51 Years At Ward No. 16, Dau Choura, Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - XYZ Nil ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1 4 .01.2026 1 Heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 17:54:23 +0530 2 2 The petitioners have filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Chargesheet bearing Number 126/22 dated 23/09/22, the FIR bearing Number 83/22 dated 08/05/22 registered by PS Mahila Thana District Raipur (C.G.) for offences u/s 498A, 377, 34 of IPC, Order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2022 and the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Ld. JMFC, Raipur, C.G., in Criminal case no. 17692/22 in case titled as "State of CG Vs Jitendra Singh Gour & Anr" in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case arises out of a purely matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who are legally wedded spouses and whose marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2020. It is submitted that although the impugned FIR has been registered under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of IPC on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the private respondent, a bare perusal thereof would reveal that the allegations are vague, generalized and omnibus in nature, without attribution of any specific overt act to any of the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel further submits that after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and during the pendency of trial, with the intervention of family members and elders, the 3 parties have amicably settled all their disputes. In furtherance of the said settlement, respondent No.2 herself moved an application under Section 320(2) read with Section 320(8) of CrPC before the learned trial Court seeking permission to compound the offence. Although the learned trial Court verified and confirmed the factum of compromise, the application came to be rejected solely on the ground that the offences involved are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. 5 It is contended that the settlement between the parties is voluntary, bona fide and arrived at without any pressure, threat or coercion, and the complainant has unequivocally expressed her unwillingness to prosecute the petitioners any further. The dispute being personal in nature and emanating purely from a matrimonial relationship, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6 Learned counsel places reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, along with other authoritative pronouncements, wherein it has been held that in matrimonial and family disputes having overwhelmingly private character, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may quash criminal proceedings when the parties have genuinely settled their disputes. 4 7 It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and in the interest of justice, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance deserve to be quashed by this Court. 8 Learned State counsel does not dispute that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship and that the complainant herself has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the criminal proceedings further. However, it is submitted that the offences involved are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC and, therefore, the application for compounding was rejected by the learned trial Court. 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and with due deliberation, and have carefully perused the pleadings, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance, the compromise application filed before the learned trial Court, the statements recorded in connection therewith, and all other documents annexed with the present petition. 10 Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful examination of the material available on record, this Court finds that the criminal proceedings in question emanate from a matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the parties are legally wedded spouses and that the 5 allegations giving rise to the impugned FIR are rooted in their inter se marital relationship. 11 A perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are largely general and omnibus in nature and do not attribute any specific role or overt act to any of the petitioners with the degree of particularity required for a criminal prosecution to proceed to its logical conclusion. The dispute, in its pith and substance, is personal and private in nature, having no overarching impact on society at large. 12 It is also evident from the record that during the pendency of the trial, the parties, with the intervention of family members and well- wishers, have amicably settled all their disputes and differences. The factum of compromise has been duly verified by the learned trial Court and the statements of the parties have been recorded, which unequivocally establish that the settlement is voluntary and free from any undue influence, pressure or coercion. The private respondent has categorically expressed her unwillingness to prosecute the petitioners any further. 13 Although the offences involved are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC and for that limited reason the learned trial Court declined permission to compound the offences, it is now well settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS are of a distinct and wider amplitude. The 6 embargo contained under Section 320 CrPC does not limit or curtail the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 14 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others , (2008) 16 SCC 1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in a catena of subsequent decisions, has authoritatively held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial and family disputes, which are essentially private in nature and where the parties have genuinely resolved their disputes, may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, even if the offences are non- compoundable, provided the continuation of proceedings would be futile and counterproductive. 15 In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the complainant herself is not interested in supporting the prosecution and the possibility of conviction is rendered remote and bleak. Allowing the proceedings to continue would only result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. 16 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for exercise of inherent 7 jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS in order to secure the ends of justice. 17 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing No.83/2022 dated 08.05.2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences under Sections 498-A, 377 and 34 of IPC, the charge-sheet bearing No.126/2022 dated 23.09.2022, the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2022 as well as all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.17692/22 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Jitendra Singh Gour & Another), are hereby quashed. 18 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu