Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12287-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 922 of 2025 1 - Sheshnarayan Janghel S/o Late Hirderam Janghel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Chakarbhatha, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 2 - Janki Bai W/o Late Hirderam Janghel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Chakarbhatha, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Rani Janghel D/o Late Hirderam Janghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Chakarbhatha, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Chitrekha Janghel D/o Hirderam Janghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Chakarbhatha, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajeshwari Verma D/o Kartikram Lodhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kuralu, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
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. 6 & 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.” 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 7 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.” 10. 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 528 of B.N.S.S. 11. 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 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 8 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. 12.
Arguments
Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate Mr. S. S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 12 .03.2024 1. This petition under Section 528 of B. N. S.S. has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 56/2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, Dist- Rajnandgaon on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. The said criminal case is pending in pursuance of the Crime No. 08/2021 registered at Police Station Chhuikhadan, for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 Sheshnarayan Janghel and Respondent No. 2 Rajeshwari Verma was solemnized on 14/06/2020 as per the Hindu rights ans rituals. After 10-20 days of marriage, dispute arose between the parties and ultimately the Respondent No. 2 made complaint against the petitioners before the Police Station Chhuikhadan and on the basis of complaint the FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. The FIR of Crime No. 08/2021 was registered against the petitioners and ultimately charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court where the Criminal Case No. 56 of 2021 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhuikhadan, Dist- Rajnandgaon½. 3 3. The respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, before the JMFC, Chhuikhadan, Dist- Rajnandgaon (CG) which is registered as Criminal Case No. 15/2021 and thereafter, 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 parties have executed an agreement with this regard on 21.02.2024, therefore the respondent no. 2 has withdrawn the complaint vide order dated 22.02.2024. The said terms and conditions of their settlement/ compromise was mentioned in the agreement which they have jointly filed before the learned trial Court which is as under:- ";g fd mHk;i{k iqu% lkekftd :i ls cSBd dj fnukad 27-10-2020 ds iqu% jkthukek fd, vkSj lkFk es jgus ds fy, jkthukek gq, vkSj iqu% lkFk jgs ysfdu 10&12 fnuks ckn iqu% erHksn gksus ls okn fookn izkjaHk gks x;k tks izFkei{k }kjk f}rh;i{k ds ifjokj okyks ds izrkMuk dk ekeyk kkjk 498 ,] 34 Hkk-n-fo- Fkkuk& NqbZ[knku esa djk;h Fkh rFkk ?kjsyq fgalk dk ekuuh; U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh egksn; izFke Js.kh NqbZ[knku esa is’k dh xbZ Fkh tks nksuks ekeyk yafcr gS rFkk Hkj.k iks”k.k /kkjk 125 gsrq ekuuh; dqVqEc U;k;ky; [kSjkx< esa ekeyk izLrqr dh Fkh ftlesa 2000@& v{kjh&nks gtkj :i;s izfrekg Hkj.k iks”k.k nsus dks vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA ftlesa 153000@& v{kjh& ianzg gtkj rhu lkS :i;s fn;k x;k gSA 03- ;g fd mHk;i{k lekt ds lkeus o nksuks i{k ifjokj okyksa ds lkeus lkekftd cSBd fnukad 17@02@2024 dks xzke pkjHkkBk esa cSBdj fcuk dksbZ Mj ncko o izyksHku ds vkilh lekatL; ls vc rd ,d lkFk jguk eqf’dy gS blfy, mHk;i{k tks djhc 3½o”kZ ls vyx jg jgs gS vkSj fdlh izdkj ls mHk;i{k ds chp ifr ifRu dk laca/k ugh jgk gS vkSj Hkfo”; esa Hkh dksbZ laca/k gksus dh laHkkouk ugh gSA blfy, lkekftd :i ls nksuks ds e/; NksM NqV~Vh dj fn;s gSaA 04- ;g fd mHk;i{k U;k;ky; esa yafcr leLr ekeyksa dks okil ysaxs o leLr izdj.k esa jkthukek djsaxs vkSj Hkfo”; esa nksuks i{k vius&vius fglkc ls iqu% fookg djsaxs o vU; dk;Z djus fd fy, Lora= jgsaxs vkt fnukad 21@02@2024 ds Ik’pkr nksuks dk dksbZ larku ugh gS vkSj u dksbZ okfjl ugha gSA nksuks mHk;i{kks ds py o vpy laifRr ij dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj ugh j[ksaxsA 05- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds e/; ngst laca/kh dksbZ fookn ugh gS vkSj leLr viuh L=h /ku okil izkIr dj yh gS RkFkk Hkj.k iks”k.k ds :i esa 1]25]000@& v{kjh& ,d yk[k iPphl gtkj :i;s Hkj.k iks”k.k dh jkf’k dks dqVqEc U;k;ky; esa fy[kk Ik<h dj izFkei{k ls f}rh;i{k }kjk fn;k tk;sxk rFkk f}rh;i{k dks izFkei{k ls dksbZ ysu nsu ‘ks”k ugh gSA 4 06- ;g fd mHk;i{k Lora= :i NksM NqV~Vh dj fy;s gS vkSj Hkfo”; esa dksbZ laca/k ugha j[kuk pkgrs bl dkj.k lekt vkSj ifjokj izeq[kks ds le{k vkt fnukad 21@02@2024 dks NqbZ[knku esa mifLFkr gksdj fcuk dksbZ Mj ncko ds ;g jkthukek is’k dj jgs gS rkfd Hkfo”; esa dke vkosA 4. The parties have settled that all the proceedings pending between the parties i.e. criminal case of Section 498-A/34 of IPC, the proceedings of Section 12 of Domestic Voilence Act are to be closed by the parties and both of them will filed a joint application for grant of decree of divorce and the respondent No. 2 (wife) would receive Rs. 1,25,000/- as permanent alimony at once. In compliance thereof instant petition has been filed by the petitioners by saying that the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of mutual settlement. In support of their contention, the affidavit of the petitioner No. 1 Sheshnarayan Janghel as well as the Respondent No. 2 Rajeshwari Verma has been filed with the present petition and the learned counsel for the respective parties have verified the same. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that they have already moved an application before the learned Link Court Khairagarh of Family Court Kabirdham, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act in which a decree of divorce has also been passed on 12.04.2024. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. 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, 5 (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. 8. 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 also in process of closing of their case filed under Section 12 of Domestice Violence Act, 2005. 9. 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
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the object of law is not only to punish the culprit but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. The main purpose of which is to settle down in life and live peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so that the parties may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process, the parties lose their precious years in attending their cases in different Courts. 13. On the basis of said compromise the proceeding initiated by the present respondent No. 2 under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act which was pending as Criminal Case No. before the learned JMFC, Chhuikhadan, Dist- Rajnandgaon has been withdrawn on 22.02.2025 9 and a decree of divorce has also been passed on 12.04.2024 by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, Circle Court Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 23/2024 by the application filed by the parties of mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 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 B.N.S.S., and in view of compromise between the parties, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 56/2021 against the petitioners/accused persons, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhauikhadan, Dist- Rajnandgaon, for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC is hereby quashed. 15. The instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. 16. The respondent No. 2 is at liberty to revive her grievance it aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the settlement dated 21.02.2024 is not fulfilled. - Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.20 10:56:56 +0530