Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:41392-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1357 of 2023 1 - Rohit Nagwani S/o Rajesh Nagwani Aged About 31 Years R/o Nagwani Multi Stores Shop, Chikhali, Khairagarh Road, Ward No. -06, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajesh Nagwani, S/o Gagandas Nagwani, Aged About 58 Years R/o Nagwani Multi Stores Shop, Chikhali, Khairagarh Road, Ward No. -06, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sunita Nagwani, W/o Rajesh Nagwani, Aged About 56 Years R/o Nagwani Multi Stores Shop, Chikhali, Khairagarh Road, Ward No. -06, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Arjun Nagwani, S/o Rajesh Nagwani, Aged About 27 Years R/o Nagwani Multi Stores Shop, Chikhali, Khairagarh Road, Ward No. -06, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sonali Mangwani, W/o Roshan Mangwani, Aged About 31 Years R/o Mira Tower, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Roshan Mangwani, S/o Murli Mangwani, Aged About 33 Years R/o Mira Tower, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioners 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Mohan Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Anita Nagwani, W/o Rohit Nagwani, Aged About 30 Years R/o 401/24, Sindhi Colony, Station Road Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 8 .0 8 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State / respondent No.1 and Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter quash the F.I.R. (P-3) dated 13-12-2022 and discharged the petitioners from the charges leveled by the S.H.O. Mohan Nagar Thana, Durg (C.G.), in the interest of justice, equity and good consciences.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent No.2, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1 and father in law and mother in law of respondent No.2, petitioner No.4 is brother in law of respondent No.2, whereas petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are sister and brother in law of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were having love 3 affair eight years prior to their marriage, which has been solemnized on 27.04.2015 with Hindu Rituals and they lived peacefully with each other up to Month of March 2020. It appears that some dispute arose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 has left the company of petitioner No.1 on 01.03.2020 and has lodged a complaint against the petitioner's on 23.05.2020 before Mahila Thana, Durg alleging that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 27.04.2015 in Pleasure Club Anjora Durg (CG) and her parents have given one new Alto Car of worth Rs. 4,20,000/-, golden ornaments and so many other things as she mentioned in complaint. She further alleged that within one week of her marriage the petitioner No.1 has sold the car given by her father as gift by saying that he will purchase a big car from the collected amount, but till that date, he has not purchased the same. She further alleged that behavior of petitioners’ were good towards her for few days but suddenly their behavior were changed towards her, they started misbehaving with her and forced her to do house hold works alone, not permitting her to go outside and they are also not permitting her to talk with her parents and other family members and started demanding Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty One lack) and started torturing her for the same, but she bear their torture with expectation that after lapse of time everything will become normal but things have becomes more worst after lapse of time. She also alleged against the petitioner No. 6 that he also 4 influence petitioner No.1 to demand money from her parents. She further alleged that petitioner No.1 use to beat her when she refused to demand money from her parents. 4. The respondent No.2 further alleged that due to continues atrocities of the petitioners towards her, she was compelled to told about the same to her parents, acting on which her parents and other members of their society have pursued the petitioners for not doing so, but petitioners have not given any heed on it and they use to left her in her parent's house again and again in pursuance of their demand of dowry and use to torture her for the same. In July 2019, the petitioners have unhoused her to bring Rs. 20,00,000/-(Twenty Lack) and papers of plot registered in name of her father by beating her, therefore she went to her parents house and told about the incident to her parents. She further stated in her complaint that her parents have visited the house of the petitioner to pursue them for not doing so, but petitioners have insisted on their demand. She further alleged that her father has given Rs. 1,80,000/- to petitioners in December 2019 and left her to petitioners house, but after two-three days the petitioner again started tortured her for demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lack) and again sent her to her parents and threatened her that if she will come back without money then they will kill her. She also make allegation against the petitioner No.1 that he is having illicit relation with another women also, hence requested to take action against the petitioners. A copy of the complaint filed 5 by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners on 23.05.2020 is annexed here with as Annexure P-1. 5. The Respondent No.2 has withdrawn her above mentioned complainant dated 23.05.2020 in request of petitioner No.1 saying that she is withdrawing her complaint with expectation of good and cardiac relationship with petitioners, but in spite of repeated request of the petitioner No.1 she never came back to his house and again the respondent No.2 has filed complaint of similar nature as it was on 23.05.2020 (P-1) on 05.10.2022 to P.S.Mohan Nagar repeating the same allegation and on the basis of said second subsequent complaint dated 05.10.2022, the police station Mohan Nagar Durg has registered the FIR against the petitioners on 13.12.2022 for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 34 of the IPC. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg vide order dated 06.05.2025 and mutual divorce has taken place on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Copy of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg is filed along with covering memo dated 16.07.2025. 7. We have perused the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg filed along with covering memo dated 16.07.2025. 6 8. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “61. 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 7 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. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. 62. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 9. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by or by relatives of her husband. Section her husband 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3 2 3 (2003) 4 SCC 675 (2013) 4 SCC 58 8 has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 11. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise 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. 12. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled their disputes on the basis of which mutual divorce has already taken place between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR dated 13.12.2022 bearing Crime No. 468/2022 registered at P.S. Mohan Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 34 of the IPC against the petitioners. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR dated 13.12.2022 bearing Crime No. 468/2022 registered at P.S. Mohan Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 34 of the IPC against the petitioners is hereby set aside. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra