1 2026:CGHC:2421-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3724 of 2025 1 - Vikas Lahare S/o Ramchandra Lahare Aged About 26 Years 2 - Ramchandra Lahare S/o Lt. Malik Ram Lahare Aged About 56 Years 3 - Smt. Dhankumari Lahare W/o Ramchandra Lahare Aged About 50 Years 4 - Dhananjay Lahare S/o Ramchandra Lahare Aged About 28 Years Petitioner No.1 to 4 are R/o Kutarabod, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Ranjana Sagar W/o Sukhdev Sagar Aged About 34 Years R/o Dhangaon, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Nandani Lahare W/o Shri Vikas Lahare Aged About 23 Years R/o Kutarabod, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address- Village Mudpar, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr.Arvind Prasad, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.15 17:52:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mr.Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Arvind Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- “(i) Entire Criminal Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1402/2025, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (ANNEXURE P-1) (ii) Cognizance order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 1402/2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pamgarh District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (ANNEXURE P-1) (iii) Final Report bearing no. 450/2025 dated 29.10.2025 submitted by the Police Station-Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pamgarh Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 449/2025 registered on 26.09.2025, under section u/s 85, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. (ANNEXURE P-2). (iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit may also be kindly passed in favour of the petitioner, in 3 the interest of justice. (v) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court, and mediation between the parties has been successfully concluded. The parties have settled their dispute by way of permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been received by respondent No. 2, as reflected in the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, has handed over a cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- to Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, today in Court, and a photocopy of the said cheque along with the receipt shall be kept on record. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “61. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 4 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 the compromise 5 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. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 6. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 6 of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 7. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3 has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 8. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 BNSS) sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably and respondent No.2 does 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 7 not want to continue the criminal proceedings further against the petitioners, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1402/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh and the cognizance order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the JMFC, Pamgarh originating from Final Report bearing No.450/2025 dated 29.10.2025 in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.449/2025 registered under Sections 85, 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1402/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh and the cognizance order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the JMFC, Pamgarh originating from Final Report bearing No.450/2025 dated 29.10.2025 in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.449/2025 registered under Sections 85, 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa are hereby quashed, subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise agreement entered into between the parties. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu