Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1113 of 2025 1 - Ram Yadav S/o Dukhharan Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Dukhharan Yadav S/o Late Shri Shivnath Yadav Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Shrimani Yadav W/o Dukhharan Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Prabhunath Yadav S/o Shri Noharu Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Infront Of Gulab Lodge, Hospital Ward Kondagaon, P.S. City Kotwali, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 5 - Asha Yadav W/o Shri Prabhunath Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Infront Of Gulab Lodge, Hospital Ward Kondagaon, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Neetu Yadav W/o Ram Yadav D/o Rajkumar Yadav, R/o Jabdapara, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : : For Respondent No.2 Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, PL Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 30/04/2025 Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/Respondent and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR/Crime No.7/2023 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur(C.G.), charge sheet filed against the petitioners under Section 498-A. 34 IPC (Annexure P/1), cognizance order dated 03.03.2023 and order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 1789/2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by the JMFC, Bilaspur and impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Fifth Additional 3 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on the ground that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2-complainant has been amicably settled subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the settlement agreement entered between the parties before the Mediation Center of this Court on 15.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2- complainant has been amicably settled subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the settlement agreement entered between the parties before the Mediation Center of this Court on 15.04.2025. 4. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 528 of the BNSS read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court inthe matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: “15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the 4 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. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only 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. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to 5 pass such orders.” 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that settlement which has been arrived at between the parties as has been mentioned in the settlement agreement. Thus, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra), we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.1789/2023 arising out of the FIR bearing No.7/2023, registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur and the entire charge sheet filed by the police under Section 498A, 34 are hereby quashed, subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions as mentioned in the settlement agreement dated 15.04.2025. 6. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.03 11:30:04 +0530