1 2026:CGHC:7565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 358 of 2022 Amit Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Yugal Kishore Sahu Aged About 38 Years Having Permanent Resident At 581, B - Block, Budhram Basti, Sonari, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, 831011. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Veena Sahu W/o Shri Amit Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Dubey Colony, Mowa, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 470 of 2022 1. Dhaneshwari Devi W/o Yugal Kishore Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o 581, B- Block, Budhram Basti, Sonari, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, 831011 2. Yugal Kishore Sahu S/o Late Shri Jairam Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o 581, B- Block, Budhram Basti, Sonari, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, 831011 ---Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Veena Sahu W/o Shri Amit Kumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Dubey Colony, Mowa, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.11 18:35:20 +0530 2 CRMP No. 357 of 2022 Smt. Lipika Chandra W/o Shri Rajiv Tripathi Aged About 33 Years R/o Flat No. 44, C-11, Mmrda, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400093, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ---Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Veena Sahu W/o Shri Amit Kumar Sahu R/o Dubey Colony, Mowa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in all the case. 2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: 3 “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order for quashing impugned FIR dated 04.01.2022 bearing Crime No. 05/2022 registered with Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (respondent No. 1) against the present petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be awarded. (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order for quashing of impugned charge-sheet bearing No. 169/2022 dated 04.01.2022 filed by the respondent No. 1 against the present petitioner (Annexure P/8), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that a compromise has taken place between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and the compromise has been executed on 10.02.2026. A photocopy of the same has been filed along with the covering memo by the counsel for the petitioners on 11.02.2026. The original compromise deed has also been produced before this Court, which is taken on record and shall be tagged along with the covering memo filed on 11.02.2026 annexing a 4 photocopy of the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petitions along with the annexures annexed thereto. 5. From perusal of the compromise deed dated 10.02.2026, it appears that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife and they have settled their dispute and compromised the matter outside the Court. 6. Taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled by way of compromise deed, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is competent to quash criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences where the dispute between the parties is primarily of a private, personal or matrimonial nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, provided that such quashing would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Further, in Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that while exercising such powers, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and its societal impact, and has observed that in matrimonial and family disputes, where parties have 5 resolved their differences amicably, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and such proceedings deserve to be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position and considering that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding further against the petitioners in these matters. 8. Consequently, the impugned FIR dated 04.01.2022 bearing Crime No. 05/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 406, 377 & 34 of the IPC against the petitioners, along with consequential proceedings including charge-sheet bearing No. 169 of 2022, is hereby quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated 10.02.2026. 9. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan