[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Akash Tiwari (Husband) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18510-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1144 of 2026
1 - Akash Tiwari (Husband) S/o- Shri Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 32
Years R/o- Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Rakesh Tiwari (Father) S/o- Krisna Kumar Tiwari Aged About 56
Years R/o- Siddhivinayak Nagar, Infront of Ashapuram, Behind,
Kashyap Kirana Store, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.) (not mentioned in the
impugned order sheet)
3 - Priti Tiwari (Mother) W/o- Rakesh Tiwari Aged About 59 Years R/o-
Siddhivinayak Nagar, Infront of Ashapuram, Behind, Kashyap Kirana
Store, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.) (not mentioned in the impugned order sheet)
4 - Aditya Tiwari (Brother) S/o- Rakesh Tiwari, Aged About 29 Years
R/o- Siddhivinayak Nagar, Infront of Ashapuram, Behind, Kashyap
Kirana Store, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.) (not mentioned in the impugned order
sheet)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
2 - Smt. Anjali Tiwari W/o- Akash Tiwari Aged About 30 Years D/o-
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA Pradeep Sharma, R/o- Devnagar Koni, P.S. Koni, District- Bilaspur
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
(C.G.)
... Respondents
2
For Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
23.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing
for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh,
learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been
preferred by the petitioners with the following prayers :-
"i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the instant petition under section 528 of
B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of
justice.
ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the F.I.R. in crime no. 116/2024 registered at
police station Sakri, District Bilaspur for the offence
committed under section 498A and 34 of I.P.C. in the
interest of justice.
iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the charge sheet bearing no. 104/2024 on
16.03.2024 filed before the JMFC wherein the
cognizance taken by the JMFC Bilaspur on dated
18.03.2024 in criminal case no. 1524/2024 for the
offence committed under section 498-A and 34 of
I.P.C. in the interest of justice.
iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the in which the charges has been framed
on dated 08.07.2024 and matter was fixed for
evidence on 28.05.2026 in which both the party has
compromised on dated 19.03.2026, in the interest of
justice."
3. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No.1
and the respondent No.2 have solemnized their marriage on
11.06.2023 at Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple as per Hindu ritual.
The respondent No.2 has went to her matrimonial house and
wherein she resided for 2-3 days due to some matrimonial dispute
she came to her parental house and has lodged an FIR in crime
No. 116/2024 for the offence committed under section 498A and
34 of I.P.C. at Police Station Sakri against her husband and his
family members and out of that counter blast, the petitioner No.1
has also filed an application for seeking divorce. The charge sheet
bearing No. 104/2024 has been filed on 16.03.2024 before the
JMFC, Bilaspur wherein the cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate on dated 18.03.2024 in Criminal Case
No.1524/2024 for the offence committed under section 498-A and
34 of I.P.C. in which the charges has been framed on dated
08.07.2024 and matter was fixed for evidence on 28.05.2026.
During the pendency of the trial, both the parties agreed to
compromise and amicably settle their dispute and the petitioner
No.1 on the assurance of the respondent No.2 has executed a
compromise deed dated 19.03.2026. The copy of compromise
deed is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/3. The petitioner No.1 and
the respondent No.2 have moved an application under section
320(1) of Cr.P.C. to compromise their matter but the same has
been rejected by the learned trial Court on dated 25.02.2026 on
the ground that same is not compoundable offence. The copy of
order dated 25.02.2026 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/2,
which is under challenged. The petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 have filed an application under 13B of Hindu Marriage Act
dated 19.03.2026, which is registered as CS/HMC 193/2026 in
which the matter is sent for mediation Center and the parties have
agreed to settle their dispute. The copy of application under
section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, order dated 19.3.2026 and
settlement agreement (Mediation Case No. 795/25 &MJC
Criminal/1335/2024) are filed herewith as ANNEXURE P/4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their disputes
and differences outside the Court and the complainant does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is submitted
that the petitioners have moved an application under Section
320(1) of Cr.P.C. for compounding the matter before the trial
Court, but the trial Court has rejected the same stating that the
offence in question is not compoundable under Section 320(1)
CrPC, which is unjustified.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant
fairly concedes to the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners and submits that Respondent No. 2 has no objection if
the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations and the fact that
the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the and the
petitioner No.1 on the assurance of respondent No.2 has
executed a compromise deed dated 19.03.2026, this Court is of
the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue. The dispute between the parties
appears to be personal in nature and does not involve any
overriding public interest. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab ,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, are applicable to the facts of the
present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the BNSS), may quash criminal proceedings
involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have
amicably resolved their dispute and continuation of proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of law.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the undisputed fact of
settlement between the parties, the present petition deserves to
be and is hereby allowed.
8. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 116/2024 registered at Police
Station SAkri, District Bilaspur, for offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom including Criminal Case No.
1524/2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bilaspur, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
