[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Patil vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by ALOK
2026:CGHC:14910-DB
ALOK SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04
12:44:47 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 880 of 2026
1 - Sunil Patil S/o Subhash Patil Aged About 32 Years (Correct Name
And Age Of Petitioner Is Mentioned) (Vicky Wrongly Added In
Chargesheet And Age Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Of Annex P/2
And P/3) R/o Street No. 5, House No. 5, Dhuleshwar Nagar, Kabnoor,
Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra) Present Address- Jai
Gopal Apartment Main Road, Near Gandhi Putla, Ichalkaranji, District
Kolhapur (Maharashtra) (Accused)
2 - Lakshmi Patil D/o Subhash Patil Aged About 28 Years R/o Street No.
5, House No. 5, Dhuleshwar Nagar, Kabnoor, Ichalkaranji, District
Kolhapur (Maharashtra) Present Address- Jai Gopal Apartment Main
Road, Near Gandhi Putla, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra)
3 - Devendra Daglia S/o Late Sohan Lal Daglia Aged About 52 Years
R/o Street No. 5, House No. 5, Dhuleshwar Nagar, Kabnoor,
Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra) Present Address- Jai
Gopal Apartment Main Road, Near Gandhi Putla, Ichalkaranji, District
Kolhapur (Maharashtra)
4 - Rekha Daglia W/o Devendra Daglia Aged About 51 Years R/o Street
No. 5, House No. 5, Dhuleshwar Nagar, Kabnoor, Ichalkaranji, District
Kolhapur (Maharashtra) Present Address- Jai Gopal Apartment Main
Road, Near Gandhi Putla, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., Police Station Mahila
Thana, Raipur District Raipur, C.G. (Prosecution)
2
2 - Smt. Ankita Dugar D/o Prasanna Dugar Aged About 32 Years
(Spelling Of Surname Correctly Mentioned), R/o Arya Shukla Building,
First Floor, City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer,
appearing for the Respondent-State, Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been
filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
"1) quash the FIR bearing No. 15/2023 dated
17/1/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Raipur, CG. for the
commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498A, read with 34 of IPC,
(Annexure P/4)
2) To quash the consequent Charge Sheet
bearing No. 13/2023 dated 17.03.2023, for
offence offences under Sections 498A, read
with 34, 406, 417 of IPC, ( Annexure P/4)
3) To quash and set aside the order dated
09/06/2023 passed by JMFC, Raipur (C.G)
whereby cognizance of the offence under
Section 498A r/w Sec 34, 406,417 of IPC has
been taken and Criminal Case No.
9900/2023being 'State of C.G. vs. Sunil @
Vicky Patil and others' has been registered.
(Annexure P/3)
4) Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 9900/2023 parties being 'State of
C.G. vs. Sunil @ Vicky Patil and others'
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, District Durg, CG, in the ends of
justice."
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the dispute arises out
of matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2,
who were married on 07.12.2020, pursuant to which the respondent
lodged the impugned FIR alleging harassment against the petitioner
and his family members. During the pendency of earlier quashing
proceedings, the matter was referred to mediation, and although initially
unsuccessful, the parties subsequently entered into an amicable
settlement by executing a comprehensive compromise deed dated
02.05.2025. As per the settlement, their marriage already stands
dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 28.07.2023, all stridhan articles
have been agreed to be returned, and the respondent has consented to
withdraw all pending litigations and has no objection to quashing of the
present criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that both parties
have since remarried and are living separately, and as charges have not
yet been framed, continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful
purpose.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present
case arises purely out of matrimonial discord between petitioner No. 1
and respondent No. 2, which has now been amicably resolved by the
parties through a duly executed compromise deed dated 02.05.2025.
Pursuant to the settlement, the marriage between the parties already
stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 28.07.2023, and both
parties have since remarried and are leading their lives independently.
The respondent No. 2 has voluntarily agreed to withdraw all criminal
and civil proceedings and has categorically stated that she has no
objection to the quashing of the present proceedings. It is further
submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are general and omnibus
in nature, and in view of the settlement, no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that disputes arising out of matrimonial
issues can be quashed when the parties have settled their differences
to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, continuation of the present
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause
undue harassment to the petitioners, and as such, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers to quash the impugned
FIR and all consequential proceedings in the interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &
Another1 has laid down the following principles in para No.61 and 62
that :
"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
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
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 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.
62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. 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."
8. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana &
Anr.2 has held in para No.14 and 15 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 her husband or by relatives
of her husband. Section 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."
2 (2003) 4 SCC 675
9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra
Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another 3 has
examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence
of non-compoundable nature.
10. 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.
11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that
parties have entered into compromise and the terms of settlement have
been reduced in writing in the settlement deed dated 02.05.2025. It is
necessary to reiterate the terms of settlement which is as follows:-
"01. यह कि उभयपक्षकारों के नाम, पते एवं अन्य विवरण शीर्ष अनुसार है।
02. यह कि प्रथम पक्षकार एवं द्वितीय पक्षकार का विवाह हिन्दू रीति रिवाज
के अनुसार उदयपुर राजस्थान में दिसंबर 2020 में संपन्न हुआ था। वर्तमान
उभयपक्षकारों के मध्य श्रीमान न्यायालय मे. सिविल जज सिनियर डिविजन
इंच्चलकरंजी, जिला-कोल्हापुर (महाराष्ट्र) प्र.क्र. एच.एम.पी.-14/23 आदेश
दिनांक-28/07/2023 को विवाह-विच्छेद हो चुका है।
03. यह कि प्रथम पक्षकार, द्वितीय पक्षकार के स्त्रीधन में प्राप्त सामान सोने
चांदी के गहने, कपड़े, इलेक्ट्रॉनिक एवं द्वितीय पक्षकार के समस्त दस्तावेज
जो कि प्रथम पक्षकार के पास उन्हें वापस करेगा एवं द्वितीय पक्षकार विना
किसी डर, दबाव के स्वेच्छया माननीय द्वितीय अतिरिक्त कु टुम्ब न्यायालय
रायपुर (छ.ग.) धारा-125 (3) द.प्र.सं. जिसका प्रस्तुत क्रमांक-822/24 को
आज दिनांक को वापस लेगी तथा प्रथम पक्षकार के विरुद्ध द्वितीय पक्षकार
3 (2013) 4 SCC 58
द्वारा दर्ज प्रकरण धारा 498ए भा.द.वि. तथा घरेलू हिंसा से महिलाओं का
संरक्षण अधिनियम 2005 को भी द्वितीय पक्षकार वापस लेगी।
04. यह कि उच्च न्यायालय बिलासपुर में लंबित प्रकरण के समाप्ति पश्चात
20 दिवस की समयावधि में प्रथम पक्षकार के द्वारा द्वितीय पक्षकार को
कपड़े, इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सामान इत्यादि वापस करेगा।
05. यह कि प्रथम पक्षकार के सामान जो सोने चांदी के गहने, कपड़े बिना
किसी शर्त के द्वितीय पक्षकार वापस करेगी एवं दोनो पक्षकार एक-दूसरे से
पावती प्राप्त करेंगे। इसके पश्चात प्रथम पक्षकार एवं द्वितीय पक्षकार द्वारा
भविष्य में किसी प्रकार से उक्त सामान, आभूषण, उपहार आदि के संबंध में
एक दूसरे पर किसी भी प्रकार से कोई दवा नहीं करेंगे एवं कोई भी लेनदेन
शेष नहीं रहेगा।
06. यह कि उभयपक्षकार भविष्य में अपना दाम्पत्य जीवन दूसरे के साथ
व्यतित करने के लिये स्वतंत्र है, इसमें किसी भी पक्ष को कोई आपत्ति नहीं
है। उभयपक्षकारगण एक दूसरे के व्यक्तिगत जीवन में कोई हस्तक्षेप नहीं
करेंगे।
07. यह कि यह समझौता /इकरारनामा आपसी सहमति से किया गया है,
एवं इसके किसी भी शर्त से किसी भी पक्षकार को कोई आपत्ति नहीं नहीं है।
08. यह कि यह समझौता दोनों पक्षकारों के द्वारा स्वतंत्र रूप से, संपूर्ण
समझदारी एवं होशोहवास में किया गया है।
09. यह कि दोनों पक्षकार भविष्य में इस विषय को लेकर कोई भी
शिकायत, आपराधिक, दीवानी या अन्य प्रकार की कोई भी कार्यवाही किसी
भी थाने या न्यायालय में एक-दूसरे के विरुद्ध कभी नहीं करेंगे यदि करते हैं
तो इस आपसी समझौता पत्र/इकरारनामा के समक्ष शून्य माना जावेगा।
10. यह कि उक्त शर्तों का पालन दोनो पक्षकारों के द्वारा समय सीमा में नहीं
किया जायेगा तो अन्य कानूनी कार्यवाही करने के लिये दोनो पक्षकार स्वतंत्र
होंगे।
अतः उपरोक्त के साक्ष्य स्वरूप निम्नांकित दो गवाहों के समक्ष प्रथम
पक्षकार एवं द्वितीय पक्षकार के द्वारा यह आपसी समझौता /इकरारनामा को
पढकर, समझकर, स्वस्थचित्त अवस्था में उक्त वर्णित शर्तों के अभिस्वीकृ ती
में राजीखुशी से अपने हस्ताक्षर कर निष्पादित कर दिये, ताकि सनद रहे
वक्त जरूरत पर काम आवे।"
12. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to
the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the
matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in
support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore
appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these
proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome.
13. In view of the statement made by the complainant and the
accused persons and also keeping in view the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana &
Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this
Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be
permitted to compound the offence.
14. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is
allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the
charge-sheet and all further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case
No. 9900/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Raipur, arising out of the FIR of Crime No. 15/2023, registered
at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur for the offence under Section
498-A, 34 of IPC, the charge-sheet No. 13/2023, dated 17.03.2023 for
the offence under Section 498-A/34, 406, 417 of IPC cognizance order
dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Raipur, stands quashed
against the petitioners (No.1 Sunil Patil, No.2 Lakshmi Patil, No. 3
Devendra Daglia No. 4 Rekha Gaglia) who are the accused persons in
that case.
12. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
