Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24226-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2710 of 2023 1 - Anil Tiwari S/o Late Janardan Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o 1229, Near Vivekanand Sporting Club, Haridev, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata (West Bengal), At Present R/o - 5027, Kedarnath Road, Dariyaganj, Police Station- Dariyaganj, New Delhi 2 - Smt. Radhika Tiwari W/o Late Janardan Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o 1229, Near Vivekanand Sporting Club, Haridev, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata (West Bengal), At Present R/o - 5027, Kedarnath Road, Dariyaganj, Police Station- Dariyaganj, New Delhi
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Priyanka Pathak W/o Suraj Kumar Pathak Aged About 38 Years R/o - 213 Prince Anvar Shah Road, Police Station- Golf Green, Kolkata 4 - Suraj Kumar Pathak S/o Tribhuwanchandra Pathak Aged About 45 Years R/o - 213 Prince Anvar Shah, Police Station- Golf Green, Kolkata (West Bengal) versus ... Petitioners 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Richa Dwivedi Tiwari W/o Anil Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o 22, Sarvoday Nagar, Heerapur Colony, Tatibandh, Amanaka Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be pleased to allow this petition, quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 25/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 498-A, 34, 420, 354(a)(ii), 509(b), 406 of I.P.C. and the entire criminal proceedings arising there from against the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case, are that, the marriage of respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized 3 on 10.12.2017 at Kolkata (West Bengal) as per the social rites and rituals. On 28.12.2017, petitioner No.1 left to Pitts burgh U.S.A. for the purpose of his job, where after respondent No.2/complainant could not accompany petitioner No.1 due to her pending Visa approval. On 12.02.2018, respondent No.2/complainant has also left for U.S.A. to continue her marital life with her husband after getting Visa approval. During the course of stay with her husband, the complainant came to know that petitioner No.1 is having issue with his gender and having no interest in making intercourse with her. She has alleged that she has seen petitioner No.1 making relationship with other male persons. Thereafter, on 31.08.2020, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant had returned to Delhi in Vande Bharat Abhiyan, wherein both of them were quarantine for 7 days due to then Situation. It is further alleged by the complainant that in Delhi also, the complainant and petitioner No.1 did not have any physical relationship with each other moreover petitioner No.1 was trying to convince the complainant to change her gender, due to which she has called her brother to bring her to Raipur. On 22.09.2020, the complainant has made a complaint before the Mahila Thana Raipur making an allegation against petitioner No.1 and his family members, on the basis of which, counseling was conducted wherein petitioner No.1 has submitted that he was willing to live with the complainant. On the basis of the assurance given by petitioner No.1, the complainant has returned to Delhi along with petitioner No. 1 on 17.01.2021. It is also alleged by the complainant that the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, 4 namely Suraj Kumar Pathak i.e. petitioner No.4 has called petitioner No.1 as to whether he wanted to settled the dispute between him and complainant and when the complainant had a talk with petitioner No.4, he tried offer her to make physical relationship with him, due to which the complainant got scared and called her brother Amit Dwivedi and returned to Raipur with her brother 10.02.2021. On 24.02.2021, again an application was made by the complainant before the Mahila Thana Raipur against petitioner No.1 and his family members. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No.25/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) was registered against the petitioners. Since petitioner No.1 was having a gender issue despite he married the complainant as well as he has not returned the Streedhan of the complainant, as such, Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC has been added against petitioner No.1. 4. Further, the complainant has made allegation against petitioner No.4 that he has outraged her modesty and accordingly, Section 354(a)(ii) and 509 (b) of the IPC has been added against petitioner No.4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-accused persons i.e. petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Session Judge Raipur (C.G.). He further submits that after completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed and the complainant and the petitioners have resolved their disputes amicably and on this very ground, the petitioners are seeking for the quashment of FIR bearing Crime 5 No.25/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34, 420, 354(a)(ii), 509(b) and 406 of the IPC as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of the orders dated 24.01.2024 and 24.04.2025, the parties i.e. petitioners-Anil Tiwari, Smt. Radhika Tiwari, Smt. Priyanka Pathak and Suraj Kumar Pathak and respondent No.2- Smt. Richa Dwivedi Tiwari have appeared before the Additional Registrar (J.) of this Court on 06.02.2024 and 10.06.2025, wherein all the disputes and differences of the parties have been amicably settled by them, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others , (2008) 16 SCC 1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the impugned FIR be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that both the parties, i.e. petitioners and respondent No.2, have mutually agreed to resolve their disputes amicably and their statements have been recorded by the Additional Registrar (J.) of this Court, which are on record. 6 9. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma (supra), B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) and also taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR has emanated has been amicably settled before the Additional Registrar (J.) of this Court, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioners in this matter. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.25/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34, 420, 354(a)(ii), 509(b) and 406 of the IPC is hereby quashed on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties before the Additional Registrar (J.). 11. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu