The High Court quashed the FIR and pending criminal case under Section 498A IPC after finding that the matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled between the husband, mother-in-law, and the wife, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in such matters.
Quashing of FIR No. 80/2021, charge sheet, and Criminal Case No. 662/2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 49 of 2024
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
For petitioner : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Adv. For respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Chetendra Singh, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
12-4-2024
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C.') praying for quashing of FIR No.80/2021 registered at P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, charge sheet pertaining to said FIR and Misc. Criminal case No. 662/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur for offence punishable under Section 498A, 34 of the IPC against them.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of respondent No. 2 and petitioner, was solemnized on 14-5-2019. After one month of marriage, respondent No. 2/wife was harassed mentally and physically by petitioners, who are her husband, mother-in-law. Based on above facts, the complainant lodged FIR against the petitioners. Charge-sheet has been filed and the criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, for quashing of which, present CRMP has been filed.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 have also deposed regarding their settlement in their statements recorded before the Addl. Registrar (Judicial).
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 extended his support to the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was not opposed by learned State counsel.
7. Pursuant to order dated 9-1-2024 and 8-2-2024 of this Court, statements of the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have been recorded by the Addl. Registrar (Judicial), in which they have stated that the matter has been settled between them amicably. The respondent No.2 / victim has also deposed that due to settlement arrived at between them, she does not want any action in the FIR No. 80/2021 registered at PS Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur and in Criminal Case No. 662/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Takhatpur against the petitioners.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and ors. -v- Babita Raghuvanshi and anr. [(2013) 4 SCC 58], Gian Singh -V- State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of M.P. -v- Laxmi Narayan and ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688], and in K. Srinivas Rao -v- D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] has dealt with the matter and has expressed the need of allowing the compromise between the parties even in non-compoundable offences in matrimonial matters, of course, subject to facts and circumstances of each case.
9. In the instant case, though offence under Section 498A of the IPC is non-compoundable, but considering that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the offence can be quashed with the leave of this Court.
10. In view of above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the parties have amicably
3
settled the dispute between them, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court to form an opinion to quash the FIR, the charge sheet and the concerned criminal case against the petitioners.
11. Consequently, FIR No. 80/2021 registered at PS Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, the charge sheet pertaining to above FIR and the Criminal Case No. 662/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, deserve to be and are hereby quashed.
12. In view of the above, present petitions are allowed.
No costs.
Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge
Pathak/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal case pending under Section 498A IPC should be quashed upon amicable settlement between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and ors. -v- Babita Raghuvanshi and anr.Referred¶24
(2013) 4 SCC 58 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh -V- State of PunjabReferred¶24
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. -v- Laxmi Narayan and ors.Referred¶24
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
K. Srinivas Rao -v- D.A. DeepaReferred¶24
(2013) 5 SCC 226 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saurabh Pandey
Vijay Laxmi Pandey
State Of Chhattisgarh
Shailja Pandey
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
