Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:23257-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1666 of 2025 1 - Swapnil Gawhane S/o Shri Omprakash Gawhane, aged about 35 years R/o Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station - Ramtek, District - Nagpur, Maharashtra 2 - Omprakash Gawhane S/o Late Shobharam Gawhane, aged about 67 years R/o Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station - Ramtek, District - Nagpur, Maharashtra 3 - Neeta Gawhane W/o Shri Omprakash Gawhane aged about 65 years R/o Ramtek, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station - Ramtek, District - Nagpur, Maharashtra versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg-Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Amisha Gawhane W/o Swapnil Gawhane Aged About 35 Years R/o House No.-4/12, Ispatnagar, Rishali, Bhilai, Thana - Newai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Complainant) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for 2 the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. This is third round of litigation. In the first round of litigation in CRMP No. 396 of 2025, on the basis of request being made by learned counsel for the petitioners for issuance of direction to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a reasonable period, as trial of the case was pending since 2021 and till that date only 5 witnesses have been examined, the same has been disposed of with a direction to learned trial Court Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same. 3. During pendency of the criminal case, both the parties have filed an application under Section 320 (1) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned trial Court for compounding the offence stating inter- alia that they have settled their dispute amicably outside of the Court, therefore, criminal case be dropped. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court holding that offence under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to direct for compounding of the offence. Hence, the petitioners have moved this Court by filing CRMP No. 1485 of 2025 seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. RCC 8153 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) and since at paragraph 12 of the settlement agreement dated 19.03.2025 executed between the parties, it is stated that “in view of the instant settlement agreement party No. 1 had agreed to pay to the party No. 4 a 3 settlement amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of Bank Demand Draft towards all her claim (past, present and future) for maintenance, stridhan, residence etc., at the time of hearing in the presence of Hon’ble Judge in High Court.”, the said petition has dismissed reserving liberty to the parties to file a fresh petition annexing an agreement for settlement of their dispute containing proper terms and conditions in accordance with law, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be borne equally by both the parties i.e. Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioners as well as Rs.25,000/- by the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from today which shall be transmitted to the Government School for Visually & Hearing Impaired, Raipur, forthwith. Hence, present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: i. Set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the JMFC, Durg (C.G), rejecting the compromise application. ii. Quash the Charge Sheet No. 51/2020 dated 31.10.2020 and cognizance order of the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.12.2020 and the charge framed on 05.03.2021 and all consequential proceedings in FIR No. 20/2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), registered as Criminal Case No. RCC 8153/2020 under Sections 498-A & 34 IPC. 4 iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Criminal Case No. RCC 8153/2020 under Sections 498-A & 34 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg, Bhilai-Durg, C.G District - Durg (C.G), titled as 'State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Swapnil Gawhane and others' currently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg(C.G). iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the applicants.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and the petitioner No.1, who is husband of the complainant/ respondent No.2 and complainant/respondent No.2 have already dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce and the complainant / respondent No.2 has voluntarily agreed to withdraw all allegations and has no objection to quashing of the criminal proceedings, as evidenced by the settlement. The said settlement was arrived amicably and without any pressure, threat or inducement. He further submitted that based on compromise in related proceedings i.e. Maintenance Case No. 239/2023 under Section 125 & 125(3) CrPC, the trial Court accepted the compromise and closed the said case, further in Domestic Violence Case in CRA No. 241/2024, the parties filed a joint compromise application, leading to the closure of the proceedings. He also submitted that in compliance of the Court’s 5 order dated 01.05.2025 passed in CRMP No. 1485 of 2025, the petitioner No.1 has already deposited Rs. 25,000/-, hence, he prayed that Criminal Case No. RCC 8153 of 2020 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) be quashed. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 also admitted the said fact. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC 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 in the 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, Their Lordships of 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 same are on considerable 6 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 pass such orders.” 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes and difference mutually outside the Court and the petitioner No.1 and complainant/respondent No.2 have already dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce and further that based on compromise in related proceedings i.e. 7 Maintenance Case No. 239/2023 under Section 125 & 125(3) CrPC, the trial Court accepted the compromise and closed the said case, further in Domestic Violence Case in CRA No. 241/2024, the parties filed a joint compromise application, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS can quash the criminal proceedings and the FIR as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by means of compromise deed dated 01.05.2025. 9. In view of the same, the instant petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCC 8153/2020 pending against the petitioners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) arising out of Charge Sheet No. 51/2020 dated 31.10.2020 submitted by the Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg for offence punishable under Section 498-A & 34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra