Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Harishankra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/9
2025:CGHC:11946-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 118 of 2025
1 - Pramod Harishankra S/o H. Syamam Sundar Rao Aged About 34 Years
R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal,
Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana
2 - Shayam Sundar Rao S/o Late H. Ramprasad Rao Aged About 67 Years
R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal,
Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana
3 - Anuradha Harishankra W/o Syama Sundara Rao Aged About 57 Years
R/o Flat No. 2, Nara Pairadize Apartment, Ps Neredmet, Dist. Metchal,
Hyderabad, District Hyderabad Telangana
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Padmaja Harishankra W/o Pramod Harishankra Aged About 30 Years R/o
Devrikhurd Housing Board Colony, Krishnanagar, Srinivas Nilayam, Ps
Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Rashika Soni, Advocate
DEWANGAN
2/9
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
11/03/2025
1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the quashment of
the FIR bearing Crime No. 44 of 2024 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), entire charge sheet,
subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur bearing Case No. 10728 of 2024 for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of
IPC.
2. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following
prayer:-
“1. It is, respectfully prayed that the entire records
pertaining to the case of the petitioner may kindly be
called from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
class, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G), bearing case
No. 10728/2024.
2. It is, respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court
that the entire charge sheet and FIR bearing no.
44/2024 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,
Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G), and subsequent
initiation of criminal proceedings bearing criminal
case No. 10728/2024 pending at court of Judicial
Magistrate First class, Bilaspur District – Bilaspur
(C.G) may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.
3/9
3. Any other further order(s) as deemed fit and
necessary by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of
justice.”
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner No.1,
petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 are husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law respectively of the complainant/respondent No.2 herein.
The marriage between complainant and the petitioner No.1 was
solemnized on 10.01.2021 as per Hindu Rites and rituals at Bilaspur
(C.G.). After marriage, the petitioner No.1 was working as IT
Professional in Hyderabad and the complainant/respondent No. 2 was
residing in matrimonial house along with petitioner No. 2 and 3 at
Hyderabad. The respondent No. 2 made a written complaint, pursuant
to which FIR dated 05.08.2024 was registered against the present
petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of
IPC against the petitioners at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur.
As a result, investigation was carried out by the concerned Police
Station and impugned charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur
(C.G.), where the case is pending as Criminal Case No. 10728 of
2024.
4. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the parties have settled
their dispute and entered into the compromise and have settled the
terms and conditions of compromise. The parties filed an application
and prayed for mutual divorce and pursuant to the said application a
compromise has been affected in between the parties. The contents of
agreement executed between the parties on 24.02.2025 is reproduced
4/9
hereinunder:
“1. यह कि अपीलार्थी क. 1 उत्तरवादी क. 2 को उसके शिक्षा संबंधी एवं अन्य
दस्तावेज जो कि फोल्डर में उसके पास है उसे अपीलार्थी कं. 1 उत्तरवादी क. 2
को वापस करेगा ।
2. यह कि अपीलार्थी कं. 1 के पास उत्तरवादी क 2 के परिवार के द्वारा उसके
विवाह के समय सोने का चेन , ब्रेस्लेट एवं रिंग है तथा चांदी का प्लेट , ग्लास, लोटा,
दो दीया स्टेंड एवं चांदी का एक वेडिंग कार्ड एवं एक छोटा रूदाक्ष है उसे अपीलार्थी
कं. 1 उत्तरवादी क. 2 को वापस करेगा।
3. यह कि उत्तरवादी क. 2 के पास अपीलार्थी के 1 द्वारा दिया गया सोने का
मंगलसूत्र है जिसे उत्तरवादी क 2 अपीलार्थी क 1 को वापस करेगी।
4. यह कि अपीलार्थी क. 1 द्वारा उत्तरवादी कं. 2 के विरूध 2nd Principal
District and Session Judge, Cum Family Court, Medchal
Malkajgiri, District-Malkajgiri के न्यायालय में विवाह विछे द का आवेदन
प्रस्तुत किया है जो कि FC OP No. 577/2024 के रूप में दर्ज किया गया है उक्त
प्रकरण में अपीलार्थी क. 1 एवं उत्तरवादी क. 2 आपसी सहमती के अधार पर
विवाह विछे द का आवेदन आगामी पेशी दिनांक 21.03.2025 को न्यायालय में
उपस्थित होकर प्रस्तुत करेगे तथा आपसी सहमती के आधार पर विवाह विछे द का
डिकी प्राप्त करेगे।
5. यह कि अपीलार्थी के. 1 उत्तरवादी क. 2 को उपराक्त विवाह विछे द के प्रकरण के
आगामी तिथी 21.03.2025 को उसके पास रखे हुये गोल्डन ब्रेस्लेट, चांदी का
वेडिंग कार्ड एवं 1 छोटा रूद्राक्ष को वापस करेगे जिसे अपीलार्थी के 1 आज नहीं ला
पाये इसी प्रकार उत्तरवादी क. 2 के कपडे जिसे अपीलार्थी के 1 के पास है उसे
पेशी दिनांक को उत्तरवादी क. 2 को वापस कर देगें।
6. यह कि अपीलार्थी के 1 उत्तरवादी क. 2 को, परमानेट एलीमनी के रूप में
25,00,000/- (पच्चीस लाख रूपये ) अदा करेगा जिसमें से वर्तमान प्रकरण में
न्यायालीन आदेश दिनांक 13.01.2025 के परिपालन में दिनांक 27.01.2025 को
अदा किये गये 1,00,000/- (एक लाख रूपये) समायोजित होगें।
5/9
7. यह कि अपीलार्थी के 1 उत्तरवादी क 2 को उपरोक्त विवाह विछे द के प्रकरण में
आपसी सहमती के अधार पर आवेदन प्रस्तुत करने के उपरान्त एवं विवाह विच्छे द
की डिकी प्राप्त करने के पूर्व उत्तरवादी क. 2 के बैंक एकाउट में 24,00,000/-
(चौबीस लाख रूपय) परमानेंट एलीमनी के रूप में जमा करेगा।
8. यह कि अपीलार्थी के 1 आज दिनांक को अपने साथ उत्तरवादी क. 2 का
कडिका 1 में उलेखित फोल्डर एवं कडिका 2 में उलेखित सोने का चेन, रिंग एवं
चांदी का सामान लेकर आया है जिसे उत्तरवादी को 2 को आज दिनांक
24.02.2025 को प्रदान किया जिसे उत्तरखादी क. 2 प्राप्त कर अपनी सहमती दी
है।
9. यह कि उत्तरवादी के 2 आज दिनांक 24.02.2025 को अपने साथ अपीलार्थी
क. 1 के द्वारा दिया गया मंगलसूत्र लेकर आयी है जिसे अपीलार्थी क. 1 उत्तरवादी
क. 2 से प्राप्त कर अपनी सहमती दी।
10. यह कि अपीलार्थी गण एवं उत्तरवादी क. 2 भविष्य में एक-दस
ू रे के विरूधविवाह एवं विवाह से संबंधित सामानो को लेकर कोई विवाद अथवा दावा किसी भी
न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा।
11. यह कि उत्तरवादी के 2 के द्वारा अपीलार्थी गणों के विरूध जो शिकायत एवं
अपराधिक प्रकरण के 10728/2024 लबित है उस पर आपसी सहमती से विवाह
विछे द डिकी (जो कि कडिका 7 में उलेखित रकम की प्राप्ति के उपरान्त निर्णित
होगी) उसके उपरान्त किसी भी प्रकार की कोई कार्यवाही नही चाहती है और उक्त
प्रकरण समाप्त एवं निरत करने पर उसे कोई आपति नहीं है।
उभयपक्ष इस समझौता पत्र की शर्तों से सहमत है एवं पालन के लिए
कटिबद्ध है समझौता पत्र में दी गई शर्तों को उन्होंने अपनी स्वयं की स्वेच्छापूर्व क
सहमति एवं बिना किसी दबाव, भय एवं लालच के स्वीकार किया गया है उभयपक्ष
ने इस समझौता पत्र की शर्तों को पढ़ने व समझने के पश्चात् अपनी स्वतंत्र सहमति
से परस्पर एक-दस
ू रे की उपस्थिति में हस्ताक्षर कर निष्पादित किया।”
5. Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no
objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing further
6/9
proceeding in the FIR as the parties have already entered into
compromise.
6. In view of the categorical statement made by the petitioners as well as
the respondent No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that once when the
complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the
dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the
High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to
compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab & Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and also in the case of
Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6)
SCC 466.
7. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
57. 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
7/9depend 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
8/9quashing 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.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v.
State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, has been held as
under;-
“29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/ investigation…..”
9. 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
9/9
therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag
these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome.
10. 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)
and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit
case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence.
11. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire
charge sheet and FIR of Crime No. 44 of 2024 registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G) as well as all
further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 10728/2024
pending at Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (C.G) stands quashed against the petitioners (Petitioner No. 1
Pramod Harishankra, Petitioner No. 2 Shayam Sundar Rao, Petitioner
No. 3 Anuradha Harishankra) who are the accused persons in that
case.
12. The present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved