Allowed

Karuna Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2023CRMP/267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an FIR registered under Section 498A and Section 34 of the IPC. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent allowing quashing in settled personal disputes and noted a judicial settlement involving the dissolution of marriage.

What did the court decide?

The petition regarding quashing of FIR No. 19 of 2018 was allowed, and the said FIR was quashed.

Karuna Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 267 of 2022

¶5

Karuna Sharma W/o Narendra Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Narendra Sharma S/o Late Shri P. Sharma Aged About 66 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Pritanshu Sharma S/o Narendra Sharma Aged About 34 Years Permanent R/o Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Ila Sharma W/o Pritanshu Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o B/32- 33, Mahaveer Nagar, Behind Bachpan Play School, Vikas Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Inspector General Of Police Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For the Petitioners : Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Astha Shukla, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey ORDER

¶17

03.07.2023

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of FIR bearing number 19 of 2018 dated 28.3.2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bilaspur for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC against them.

¶20

¶21

FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 against the petitioners. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 were married on 9.5.2016 and thereafter, on account of some dispute an FIR was lodged against the petitioners who are husband and relatives on 28.3.2018.

¶22

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties before the learned Family Court and the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the concerned Court where the parties also agreed to enter into compromise in all pending criminal and civil cases.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of ‘ Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 , that the matter which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.

¶25

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramgopal (supra), and further considering the fact that the parties have already settled the dispute and a letter has been sent by the Principal Judge, Family Court to Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh and Police

¶26

¶27

Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur in this regard, I am inclined to allow this petition by quashing the FIR as the matter has already been settled between the parties.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Nimmi

Karuna Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuna Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheikh Hussain and Ors. Vs State of C.G.

Sheikh Anwar Hussain Ansari Vs State of C.G.

Rai Singh Vs the State of C.G.

Tejas Patel Vs Smt. Roshni Patel

Sanni Jain Vs Rajesh Kumar Jain

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh