[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Harsh Gangwani vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13919-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 843 of 2026
1 - Harsh Gangwani S/o Bharat Gangwani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
502 Suraj Apartment, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai (Maharastra)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Mahila
Thana- District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - XYZ
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
24-03-2026
1. Heard Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer,
appearing for the Respondent No.1/State and Mr. Sourabh Sonwani,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been
filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
"i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-
aside the impugned first information report (F.I.R.) No.
124/2023 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur District
Raipur - (C.G.) dated 20/10/2023 for offences under
section 498 A, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the Final
Report No 83/2024, Dated 08/08/2024, in the interest of
justice
ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-
aside the Order taking Cognizance Dated 09/08/2024
Passed In Criminal Case No -14209/2024 in case of
(State Of Chhattisgarh. VS Harsh Gangwani ) Passed By
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District-
Raipur,, in the interest of justice (C.G.).
iii. This Hon'ble Court may Kindly please to quash/ Set aside
the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No
14209/2024 ( State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Harsh Gangwani)
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class
Raipur, in the interest of Justice."
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant who is wife of the
petitioner has made a written complaint to Police Station Mahila Thana,
Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioner and her mother-in-law stating that
marriage between the complainant and the petitioner was solemnized
on 28-12-2021. In her complaint she alleged that after the marriage they
were residing at Mumbai where she came to know that the petitioner is
in habit of drinking liquor. He used to quarrel with her on trivial issues
and did not provide her necessary items of routine domestic use and
asked her to get the same from her parents and she was also
pressurized to make demand for share in her parents property. In her
complaint there are also allegations of compelling her for unnatural
intercourse, abortion of pregnancy and assault upon her by the
petitioner. Further allegation of threatening of making their private video
viral and giving divorce questioning her fidelity has been made by the
complainant. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner
also raised dispute for expenditure of delivery of their son Vaidik on
06-12-2022. As per the complainant, there was regular mental and
physical torture and harassment given by the petitioner and she was not
permitted to cook food in the home, but they ordered food from outside
for themselves only. She was sent to her parents house at Raipur on
21-02-2023 on the pretext of health purposes, but after some days the
belongings of her and their son was sent to the address of brother of the
complainant. On being requested to take her to Mumbai, the petitioner
did not come to take her back and the petitioner is defaming her putting
false allegations on her character. On the basis of the said complaint,
an FIR was registered under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC on 20-10-
2023 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur bearing Crime No.
0124/2023. During the investigation complainant made written request
that she does not want any action against her mother-in-law on account
of her old age and illness. After completion of the investigation, the
police filed Final Report No. 83/2024 on 08-08-2024 against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A and 377 of the IPC before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur upon which the learned trial
Court took cognizance on 09-08-2024 and Criminal Case
No.14209/2024 is pending before the learned trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner and
the complainant have amicably settled their disputes and filed
application under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by
mutual consent before the learned Family Court Raipur and vide order
dated 08-08-2024 the learned Family Court, Raipur has allowed the
application and decree of divorce has been drawn. Copy of the order
dated 08-08-2024 has been annexed in the present petition as
Annexure-A/2. He would further submit that the present FIR arises out
of a purely private matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has
now been amicably resolved through a settlement recorded in the
Affidavit dated 03-03-2026, wherein Respondent No. 2 has agreed to
mutual consent divorce, full and final financial settlement, and
withdrawal of all allegations, and has further stated that she has no
objection to the quashing of the FIR against the petitioner. Also, at the
time of hearing of anticipatory bail application before this Court, the
complainant through her counsel expressed her no objection in grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In such circumstances, continuation of
the criminal proceedings would be wholly futile, as the complainant
herself is no longer willing to support the case, and no likelihood of
conviction remains. It is submitted that the continuation of proceedings
would result in unnecessary harassment and would amount to an abuse
of the process of law. It is a settled position that in cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, which are personal in nature and do not affect
public peace or societal interest, the High Court may exercise its
inherent powers to quash proceedings in order to secure the ends of
justice, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. Therefore, in view of the amicable
settlement and the law laid down, the impugned FIR and all
consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of
process and to secure the ends of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petition/application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for
divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court Raipur has
been allowed vide order dated 08-08-2024 and decree of divorce has
been drawn.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant supported the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits
that the matter has been compromised between the parties. He would
further submit that respondent No.2/complainant has executed the
affidavit dated 03-03-2026 submitting that all the disputes between the
parties have amicably settled with mutual consent.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
8. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another,
(2012) 10 SCC 303 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
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,
[B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil
Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677] and
Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1]
were not correctly decided. We answer the reference ac-
cordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the
Bench(es) concerned."
9. In the present matter, 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.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were
involved in a matrimonial dispute, which has now been amicably settled
between them. The record further reflects that the parties have already
obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 08-08-
2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, and respondent No. 2
has also executed an affidavit dated 03-03-2026 affirming the
settlement and expressing her no objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR. The learned counsel for the State has also not disputed
the factum of settlement and dissolution of marriage. Considering that
the dispute is purely personal in nature and does not affect public peace
or societal interest, and in light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial disputes on the basis of compromise, further
considering that the possibility of conviction is very remote and bleak,
this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings would be
an exercise in futility and would amount to abuse of the process of law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and
criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.14209/2024 against
the petitioner is hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of the terms of the
compromise/settlement entered into between the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
