High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.27 11:37:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 484 of 2025 2025:CGHC:14554-DB NAFR 1 - Manas Kashyap S/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 42 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrika Bai W/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap, Aged About 70 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Satyam Kashyap D/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 43 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Satyajeet Kashyap S/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sulochana Kashyap W/o Satyajeet Kashyap Aged About 35 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shashank Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 35 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Anisha Kashyap D/o Late Ramkumar Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Ratanpur Bhedipara, Ward No. 07, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,(C.G.). 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Shivrinarayan, District Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shanti Kashyap D/o Trishugi Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 31 Years R/o Bajarang Chowk Kamta, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioners For State For Respondent No.4 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Kavita Tiwari and Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocates. Shri Shaquib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 26.03.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the quashment of the FIR No.70 of 2023 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, entire charge sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh in Criminal Case No. 273 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 34 of IPC. 2 The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “I. Quash FIR No.70 of 2023 dated 08.02.2023 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. II. Quash charge sheet No.77/2023, dated 17.03.2023 submitted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. III. Set aside the order dated 17.03.2023 taking cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Case No.273 of 2023.” 3 Facts of the case are that, the petitioner No.1 and respondent 3 No.4/complainant are husband and wife. The other petitioners are near relatives of petitioner No.1/Husband. Marriage between the complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 16.12.2021 as per their rites and customs. It is alleged that after sometime of marriage, the petitioners started harassing the complainant on account of less dowry. The respondent No. 4 made a written complaint, pursuant to which FIR dated 08.02.2023 was registered against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 34 of IPC against the petitioners at Police Station Shivrinarayan. As a result, investigation was carried out by the concerned Police Station and impugned charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, where the case is pending as Criminal Case No. 273 of 2023. 4 During the pendency of the said criminal case, in a mediation proceeding dated 22.03.2025 the parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise and have settled the terms and conditions of compromise. The contents of agreement executed between the parties on 22.03.2025 in a mediation proceeding is reproduced hereinunder: “1. यह कि(cid:4) अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4). 1, उ्ቈरवाकि(cid:16)नी (cid:4)ं . 4 (cid:4)ो सम्मान पूव(cid:24)(cid:4) उस(cid:4)े किपता (cid:4)े घर से अपने घर ले(cid:4)र जायेगा और उसे अपने साቕኍ सम्मान पूव(cid:24)(cid:4) पत्नी (cid:4)े रूप में रखेगा। 2. यह कि(cid:4) यह कि(cid:4) अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)ं . 1 इस बात (cid:4)ी घोषणा (cid:4)रता है कि(cid:4) उस(cid:4)े ्ቛारा कि(cid:4)सी अन्य मकिहला (cid:4)ो अपनी पत्नी नहीं बनाया है ना ही (cid:4)ोई अन्य मकिहला से उस(cid:4)ी सन्तान उत्प्ቐ हुई है। 3. यह कि(cid:4) अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)ं . 1. उ्ቈरवा(cid:16)ीनी (cid:4)ं . 4 (cid:4)ा नाम अपने सेवा पुቜኌ1त(cid:4)ा में नाकिमनी (cid:4)े रूप में (cid:16)ज(cid:24) (cid:4)रायेंगा। 4. यह कि(cid:4) उ्ቈरवा(cid:16)ीनी (cid:4)ं . 4 अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)ं . 1 एवं अन्य अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) गणो (cid:4)े किवरूध 4 जिजस कि(cid:4)सी न्यायालय में (cid:16)ावा एवं ्ቚ(cid:4)रण (cid:16)ज(cid:24) (cid:4)राई है उसे उ्ቈरवाकि(cid:16)नी (cid:4)ं . 4 वापस ले लेगी। इस समझौता प्ቔ (cid:4)ी शत: से अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4). 1 किवडि<वों (cid:4)ां्ቛें सीग से उपቜኌ1ቕኍत हो(cid:4)र अपनी सहमती कि(cid:16)या अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)े . 7 एवं उ्ቈरवाकि(cid:16)नी (cid:4). 4 (cid:4)े सम्ቌ कि(cid:16)ये है जिजस पर अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)ं . 7 अपीलाቕኍ(cid:11) (cid:4)ं . 1 (cid:4)ी ओर से कि(cid:16)ये गये सहमती / समझौता (cid:4)ो पालन (cid:4)राने (cid:4)े लिलए (cid:4)किBब्ቍ वचन (cid:4)रती हैं इस ्ቚ(cid:4)ार समझौता प्ቔ में (cid:16)ी गई शत: (cid:4)ो उन्होंने अपनी 1वयं (cid:4)ी 1वेच्छापूव(cid:24)(cid:4) सहमडित एवं किबना कि(cid:4)सी (cid:16)बाव, भय एवं लालच (cid:4)े 1वी(cid:4)ार कि(cid:4)या गया है उभयप्ቌ ने इस समझौता प्ቔ (cid:4)ी शत: (cid:4)ो पढ़ने व समझने (cid:4)े प्ቐात् अपनी 1वतं्ቔ सहमडित से पर1पर ए(cid:4)- (cid:16)ूसरे (cid:4)ी उपቜኌ1ቕኍडित में ह1ता्ቌर (cid:4)र किनष्पाकि(cid:16)त कि(cid:4)या।" 5 Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing further proceeding in the FIR as the parties have already entered into compromise. 6 In view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 4, this Court is of the opinion that once the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. 7 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 5 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 the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, has been held as under;- “29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the 6 matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation..…” 9 Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 10 In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 11 In view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties in a mediation proceeding on 22.03.2025, the entire charge sheet and FIR of Crime No. 70 of 2023 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa as well as all further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 273/2023 pending at Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, stands quashed against all the petitioners who are the accused persons in that case. 12 The present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice inder