1 2026:CGHC:19574-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 938 of 2026 1 - Kartik Soni S/o Late Amritlal Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Pawar Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Urmila Soni W/o Late Amritlal Soni Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Pawar Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Samridhi Soni W/o Prem Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Pawar Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Mahila Thana District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Soniya Soni W/o Kartik Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Old Sheetla Mandir, Behind Cloth Market, Pandari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29 17:10:47 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 28 .04.2026 1. Heard Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:- “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR as well as entire Charge- sheet No. 09/2024 dated 15.02.2024 registered in crime no. 06/2024, under section - 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. at Police Station District- Raipur (C.G.). Mahila Thana, B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash the proceeding and cognizance taken on 26.02.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in the Criminal Case No.- 1874/2024. C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash the Charges framed against the petitioners dated 08.08.2025, in the Criminal Case No.-1874/2024 (annex. P- 2) pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. 3 D. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash the entire Criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.-1874/2024, for the alleged offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. and may kindly set free the petitioners from the aforesaid allegation, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that The marriage of petitioner No. 1, Kartik Soni, was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2023 as per Hindu rites, after which the complainant resided in her matrimonial home along with the petitioners. On 24.11.2023, the complainant left the matrimonial house with her brother, taking her ornaments, and did not return despite efforts made by the petitioners. Subsequently, on 07.01.2024, she lodged an FIR against the petitioners under Section 498-A/34 IPC alleging cruelty and dowry demand. Pursuant thereto, charge-sheet No. 09/2024 was filed on 15.02.2024 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and cognizance was taken on 26.02.2024, registering Criminal Case No. 1874/2024. The petitioners were granted bail on 23.05.2024, and thereafter, charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC were framed on 08.08.2025, which were denied by the petitioners. The matter is presently pending for prosecution evidence, with the next date of hearing fixed on 29.04.2026. 4. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise and have settled the terms and conditions of compromise. The said terms and conditions of their settlement/ compromise was as under :- 4 1. अनावेदिका श्री मती सोनिनाया सोना का आवेका कार्तितीका सोना अपना सोथ रखना का लिए अग सो घर ग और वेहाँ पर अपना सोथ रखना का लिए ती यार हाँ । 2. अनावेदिका श्री मती सोनिनाया सोना का काहाँना हाँ निका याहाँ आवेका का सोथ चार महाँ तीका रहाँकार खग और इना चार महाँ का भी तीर अनावेदिका का आवेका निकासो भी बाती& पर परशाना नाहाँ( कारग ती अनावेदिका सोक्षम न्यायाया म+ ,निबाती सोभी प्रकारणों& का वेपसो  ग । 3. अनावेदिका द्वार आवेका का खिखफ मनाना या का2 टु2म्बा न्यायाया, रयाप2र (छ०ग०) का सोमक्ष धार 125 भीरणों- पषणों का प्रकारणों ,निबाती हाँ जि:सोम+ 5,000/- दिया : रहाँ हाँ उसो भी चार महाँ बा अनावेदिका द्वार वेपसो  लिया :याग। 4. आवेका द्वार अनावेदिका का  :ना का लिए 11 मई 2026 का प,ढर रयाप2र (छ०ग०) म+ स्थि?ती अनावेदिका का घर ना :एग। उभीयापक्ष इसो सोमझौAती पत्र काC शातीD सो सोहाँमती हाँ एवे, पना का लिए कादिटुबाद्ध हाँ सोमझौAती पत्र म+ F गई शातीD का उन्हाँ&ना अपना स्वेया, काC स्वेच्छापIवेJका सोहाँमनिती एवे, निबाना निकासो बावे, भीया एवे, बा का स्वे कार निकाया गया हाँ उभीयापक्ष ना इसो सोमझौAती पत्र काC शातीD का पढ़ना वे सोमझौना का पश्चाती अपना स्वेती,त्र सोहाँमनिती सो परस्पर एका- दूसोर काC उपस्थि?निती म+ हाँस्तीक्षर कार निनाष्पदिती निकाया। 5. As per the terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 has agreed to take respondent No. 2 (wife) to a separate residence and maintain her with dignity. The respondent No. 2 has, in turn, agreed to reside with the petitioner for a period of four months on a trial basis, during which no harassment shall be caused to her. It has further been agreed that upon satisfactory cohabitation during the said period, the respondent No. 2 shall withdraw all pending cases initiated against the petitioners, including proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the Family Court at Raipur. The parties have executed the settlement out of 5 their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure, and are bound by its terms. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the aforesaid amicable settlement, it is humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. 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. 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. 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case, after filing of criminal case under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, parties have amicably settled their disputes and pursuant thereto, filed an application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. They are 6 also in process of closing of their case filed under Section 12 read with Section 20, 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, 2005 and also under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 10. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 10 to 15 paras “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. … …. 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.” 7 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 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.” 11. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. 12. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- 8 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 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 9 the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 13. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and has been amicably settled through mediation, this Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would adversely affect the chances of reconciliation. The settlement arrived at between the parties appears to be voluntary and genuine. 14. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra), this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, quash the FIR as well as entire Charge-sheet No 09/2024 dated 15.02.2024 registered in Crime No. 06/2024, under Section 498- A/34 of IPC at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur and also quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1874/2024 against the petitioners/accused persons, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 15. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika