Allowed

Leelaram Sahu v. Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2024CRR/73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matrimonial disputes between husband, his relatives and wife led to a 498A/506/34 IPC case, a maintenance award of Rs.15,000 per month, a revision petition, and proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and Domestic Violence Act. After mediation, the parties settled with Rs.4,20,000 paid by the husband and mutual-consent divorce planned. Quashing the criminal proceedings and disposing of all pendin

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR/Crime No.73 of 2022 and Criminal Case No.17924 of 2022 against all accused petitioners; CRR-73 of 2024 disposed of in terms of compromise.

Leelaram Sahu Vs Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRMP No. 1716 of 2024

¶4

Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 28 Years

¶5

Smt. Binda Bai Sahu W/o Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 57 Years

¶6

Durga Prasad Sahu S/o Late Pachkod Sahu Aged About 59 Years All R/o Village- Laripara, Kargi Road, Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Lilaram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o VillageKhopra, P.S. And Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

AND

¶13

CRMP No. 1827 of 2024

¶14

Leelaram Sahu S/o Shri Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Laripara, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present Constable, Batch No. 1579, P.S. Somni, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶15

---- Petitioner Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Lilaram Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Khorpa, P.S. And Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

AND

¶20

CRR No. 73 of 2024

¶21

Leelaram Sahu S/o Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Laripara, Kargi Road, Kota, P.S. - Kargi Road Kota, District Bilaspur, C.G. At Present Constable Batch No. 1579, Lalbagh, P.S. - Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Applicant

¶22

Versus

¶23

Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Leelaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years At Present R/o C/o Rewaram Sahu, Village And Post - Khopra, P.S. Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhnapur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent

¶24

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶25

For respective Petitioners and Applicant	: Shri Jaideep Singh Yadav, and Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocates
For Respondent/State	: Shri Malay Jain, PL
For Private Respondent	: Shri Hari Om Rai and Shri Aseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocates

¶26

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶27

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶29

Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 15.07.2024

¶30

All these three petitions arising out against the matrimonial dispute between the parties, and therefore, they are being heard and decided together.

¶31

CRMP-1716 of 2024 is filed by petitioner-1 Mahendra Kumar Sahu, (brother-in-law), petitioner-2 Smt Binda Bai Sahu (mother-in-law), and petitioner-3 Durga Prasad Sahu (father-in-law) of the complainant/respondent-2 Smt Yogeshwari Sahu for quashing of the charge-sheet No.95 of 2022, filed by the Mahila Thana, District-Raipur before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (JMFC), District-Raipur for the offence under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC, pursuant to the FIR-73 of 2022, and subsequent proceeding of Criminal Case-17924 of 2022, pending before the JMFC Raipur .

¶32

Prayer in this petition: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and chargesheet no.95 of 2022 filed by the Police-Mahila thana, DistrictRaipur before the learned JMFC, Raipur against the present petitioner under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860 in pursuance of the FIR no.73/2022 dated 16/04/2022 be dismissed and quashed along with the consequential

¶33

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶34

¶35

proceedings pertaining to Criminal Case no.17924/2022 pending before the learned Trial Court, (JMFC, Raipur) Distt-Raipur (CG), in the interest of justice.”

¶36

CRMP-1827 of 2024 is filed by Leelaram Sahu, husband of the complainant/respondent-2/wife, claiming the same relief as in CRMP1716 of 2024.

¶37

CRR-73 of 2024 is filed by the husband of respondent-2/wife against the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Criminal MCC-339 of 2022, whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted to the respondent/wife as maintenance from the date of application, i.e. 04.05.2022.

¶38

Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the petitioner/applicant Leelaram Sahu and the private respondentYogeshwari Sahu was solemnized on 26.06.2021, as per their customs and rituals. After some time of the marriage, dispute arose between husband and wife, and the other petitioners started harassing the respondent for demand of dowry. She was also pressurized for having unnatural sex by the husband. Due to the harassment made by all the petitioners, respondent/wife started residing with her parents from 28.07.2021. Subsequently, she came to know through her mobile phone that another lady is claiming to be wife of her husband, then, she came to know that her husband is having illicit relation with the said lady since last

¶39

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶40

¶41

three years. A Community Meeting was call for on her application, in which her husband has denied to keep the respondent with him, and before the Community persons, a mutual deed of divorce was got executed with a condition that the husband will pay Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant/wife as permanent alimony, and also Rs.2 lakhs towards gift items received at the time of marriage from her side. Afterwards, husband has refused to accept the settlement arrived at in the Community meeting, and ultimately, a written complain was made by the complainant on 16.04.2022 to the Police, on which the FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC. On 04.05.2022, the complainant-Smt Yogeshwari Sahu filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, vide CrMJC Case-339 of 2022, and after hearing the parties, learned Family Court has passed an order dated 15.12.2023, and awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the complainant/wife from the date of application. This order was challenged by the husband before this Court in CRR-73 of 2024.

¶42

In the said Criminal Revision, the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre, to explore the possibility of compromise between the parties vide order dated 10.04.2024, and directed the parties to remain present before the Mediation Centre of this Court, on 26.04.2024. Thereafter, after number of sittings before the Mediation Centre, compromise is arrived at between the petitioner-Leelaram Sahu (husband) and the respondent-Yogeshwari Sahu (wife) on 21.06.2024 on

¶43

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶44

¶45

the terms of compromise are reduced in writing, which is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience:

¶46

Terms and conditions of Compromise :

¶47

vihykFkhZ@izFkei{k Jh yhykjke lkgw rFkk izfroknh@f}rh; i{k Jherh ;ksxs”ojh lkgw dk fookg fnukad 26@06@2021 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ls xzke iksaxfjgk] Fkkuk r[kriqj] ftyk fcykliqj (N0x0) esa gqvk FkkA fookg mijkUr f}rh;i{k fonk gksdj vius llqjky@izFkei{k ds ?kj vk xb Z rFkk fnukad 18@08@2021 rd vius llqjky esa jgh fdUrq vkilh lkeatL; u gks ikus ds dkj.k f}rh;i{k fnukad 18@08@2021 dks izFkei{k dk ?kj NksM+dj vius ek;ds vk xbZ rc ls og vius ek;ds esa jg jgh gSA

¶48

vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 dks nksuksa i{k bl e/;LFkrk dsUnz esa fuEukafdr “krksaZ ds v/khu vkilh lgefr ls lqyg dj le>kSrk i= ij gLrk{kj djrs gSa %&

¶49

;g fd f}rh; i{k Jherh ;ksxs”ojh lkgw ekuuh; dqVqEc U;k;ky;] jk;iqj esa 125 lh-vkj-ih-lh- dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa 15]000@& (ianzg gtkj :i;s ek=) izfrekg dk vokMZ gqvk gS ftldh olwyh gsrq f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk us 125 (3) lh-vkj-ih-lh- dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 rd iwoZ dk vo’ks’k rFkk Hkfo’; esa izkIr gksus okyh thou fuokZg HkRrk dk ifjR;kx djrh gS rFkk vkosnd@izFke i{k ls Hkj.k iks’k.k dh ekax ugha djsxhA

¶50

;g fd f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dk ?kjsyw fgalk dk izdj.k ek- U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh] jk;iqj esa fopkjk/khu gS ftlesa varfje Hkj.k iks’k.k 4]000@& (pkj gtkj :i;s ek=) izfrekg izFke i{k@vkosnd ls izkIr djus dk vkns’k gqvk gS ftls vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 ls iwoZ dk laiw.kZ “ks’k jkf’k tks f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dk vc rd izkIr ugha gqvk gS rFkk Hkfo’; esa f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dks bl en esa izkIr gksus okyh jkf’k dk f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk iw.kZ :i ls ifjR;kx djrh gS rFkk Hkfo’; esa bl en esa uk rks dksbZ jkf’k dh

¶51

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶52

¶53

ekax djsxh vkSj uk gh dksbZ dsl bl laca/k esa fdlh U;k;ky; esa is’k djsxhA rFkk viuk vkosnu bl lanHkZ esa tks Jheku U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] jk;iqj ds le{k fopkjk/khu gS] dks okil ys ysxhA

¶54

;g fd f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk us /kkjk 27 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk izdj.k ekuuh; dqVqEc U;k;ky;] jk;iqj esa izLrqr fd;k gS tks L=h/ku izkIr djus ds fy;s gS ml izdj.k dks okil ys ysxhA

¶55

;g fd f{rh; i{k@vukosfndk us izFke i{k vkosnd rFkk mlds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) /kkjk 498] 506] 34 Hkk-na-la- dk izdj.k Jheku U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh] jk;iqj ds le{k fopkjk/khu gS dks okil ysxhA

¶56

;g fd izFke i{k@vkosnd rFkk f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk nksuksa fnukad 02@07@2024 dks jk;iqj esa mifLFkr gksdj vkilh lgefr ls rykd gsrq vkosnu izLrqr dj rykd ys ysaxsA

¶57

;g fd f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk us izFke i{k@vkosnd ls (5) ikap psd vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 dks izkIr dj fy;k gS ftldks f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk vius cSad esa tek dj mDr jkf’k izkIr dj ysxh lHkh psd dh ;ksx jkf’k 4]20]000@& (pkj yk[k chl gtkj :i;s ek=) gSA

¶58

blh izdkj izFke i{k@vkosnd us ekuuh; l= U;k;ky;@vfrfjDr l= U;k;ky;] jk;iqj esa ?kjsyw fgalk esa ikfjr vkns’k ds fo:) vihy izLrqr fd;k gS ftls og okil ys ysxkA

¶59

izFke i{k@vkosnd us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj ds le{k orZeku iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk dzekad 73@2024 izLrqr fd;k gS mls og okil ys ysxkA

¶60

;g fd izFke i{k@vkosnd ds fo:) f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk us ftl fdlh Hkh foHkkx@laLFkk esa mlds fookg ls lacaf/kr f’kdk;r vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 ds iwoZ izLrqr fd;k gksxk mls bl le>kSrkukek ds ds ckn f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk }kjk izFke i{k@vkosnd ds i{k esa okil ys fy;k x;k ekuk tk;sxk rFkk ;fn fdlh f’kdk;r esa fdlh rhljs i{k ds fo:) dksbZ f’kdk;r fy[kh xbZ gksxh rks ml rhljs i{k ds fo:) vkxkeh dk;Zokgh pyrh jgsxhA

¶61

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶62

¶63

;g fd izFke i{k@vkosnd us f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dks (5) ikap psd vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 dks iznku e/;LFkrk dsUnz esa e/;LFk ds le{k iznku dj fn;k gs ftldh dqy jkf’k 4]20]000@& (pkj yk[k chl gtkj :i;s ek=) gS blds vykok izFke i{k@vkosnd f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dks u rks dksbZ jkf’k nsxk vkSj uk gh dksbZ jkf’k f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk ls ekax djsxkA blh izdkj f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk 4]20]000@& (pkj yk[k chl gtkj :i;s ek=) izkIr dj izFke i{k@vkosnd ls uk rks dksbZ jkf’k dh ekax djsxh vkSj uk gh dksbZ vU; jkf’k mls okil djsxhA

¶64

;g fd vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 ds ckn fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds }kjk izFke i{k@vkosnd ds osru ls dVkSrh dj f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dks iznku djus dk vkns’k gksrk gS rks mDr dVkSrh dh jkf’k izFke i{k@vkosnd yhykjke lkgw okil izkIr djus dk gdnkj jgsxkA

¶65

;g fd izFke i{k@vkosnd] f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk dks vkt fnukad 21@06@2024 dks fuEu (5) ikap psd iznku fd;k gS ftldk fooj.k fuEu gS %&

¶66

12.1 fnukad 02@07@2024 dks psd dzekad 488536 jkf’k 60]000@& (lkB gtkj :Ik;s ek=) dk iznku fd;k gSA 12.2 fnukad 01@08@2024 dks psd dzekad 488537 jkf’k 60]000@& (lkB gtkj :Ik;s ek=) dk iznku fd;k gSA 12.3 fnukad 01@09@2024 dks psd dzekad 488538 jkf’k 60]000@& (lkB gtkj :Ik;s ek=) dk iznku fd;k gSA 12.4 fnukad 01@10@2024 dks psd dzekad 488539 jkf’k 60]000@& (lkB gtkj :Ik;s ek=) dk iznku fd;k gSA 12.5 fnukad 01@11@2024 dks psd dzekad 488542 jkf’k 1]80]000@& (,d yk[k vLlh gtkj :Ik;s ek=) dk iznku fd;k gSA

¶67

bl izdkj f}rh; i{k@vukosfndk Jherh ;ksxs’ojh lkgw dks izFke i{k@vkosnd yhykjke lkgw }kjk psd iznku fd;k x;k gS mlesa izFke n`’V;k dksbZ =qfV ugha gS fQj Hkh ;fn dksbZ =qfV jg tkrh gS rks izFke i{k@vkosnd yhykjke ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh djus ds iwoZ lwpuk i= f}rh;

¶68

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶69

¶70

i{k@vukosfndk }kjk nh tk;sxhA rkfd izFke i{k@vkosnd ml =qfV dks ;Fkk”kh?kz nwj dj ldsA

¶71

mHk;i{k bl le>kSrk i= dh “krksaZ ls lger gSa ,oa ikyu ds fy;s dfVc) gSa le>kSrk i= esa nh xbZ “krksZa dks mUgksaus viuh Lo;a dh LosPNkiwoZd lgefr ,oa fcuk fdlh ncko] Hk; ,oa ykyp ds Lohdkj fd;k gS mHk;i{k us bl le>kSrk i= dh “krksZa dks i<+us o le>us ds i”pkr~ viuh Lora= lgefr ls ijLij ,d&nwljs dh mifLFkfr esa gLrk{kj dj fu’ikfnr fd;kA

¶72

Since the parties have settled that all the proceedings pending between the parties i.e. Criminal Case of Section 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC, the proceeding initiated by the complainant/wife under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending before the Family Court, Raipur, proceeding initiated by the complainant/wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the CRR-73 of 2024 filed by the petitioner/husband against the order of maintenance shall be withdrawn by the respective parties, and the husband and wife, both shall file an application for grant of divorce on mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Raipur. It was also settled between the parties that the petitioner/husband shall pay Rs.4,20,000/- to the respondent/wife, in five installments, out of which the 1 st installment amount of Rs.60,000/has already been paid on 02.07.2024. Balance amount has been paid through post dated cheques.

¶73

In support of their contention, the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties, have been admitted by the respective counsels, and the copies of compromise/settlement dated 21.06.2024 arrived at in

¶74

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶75

¶76

Mediation Centre of this Court in CRR-73 of 2024, has been placed on record of both the CRMPs-1716 and 1827 of 2024. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that they have already settled their dispute and moved an application before the learned Family Court, Raipur under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of divorce on mutual consent.

¶77

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶78

Learned counsel for the parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another, 2013 (4) SCC 58, Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, - (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably.

¶79

It is not in dispute that in the present case, after filing of criminal case under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, parties have amicably settled their disputes and pursuant thereto, filed an application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. They are also in process of closing of their case filed under Section 12 read with Section

¶80

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶81

¶82

20, 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, 2005 and also under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶83

12. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme

¶84

Court held as under in para-10 to 15 of its judgment:

¶85

“10. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably.

¶86

It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand.

¶87

After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:

¶88

“8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held:

¶89

“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.”

¶90

As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was

¶91

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶92

¶93

the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of noncompoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶94

The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

¶95

In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.”

¶96

In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.

¶97

In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-

¶98

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶99

¶100

“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 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 predominatingly 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

¶101

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶102

¶103

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.”

¶104

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the object of law is not only to punish the culprit but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. The main purpose of which is to settle down in life and live peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so that the parties may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process, the parties lose their precious years in attending their cases in different Courts.

¶105

Consequently, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) , this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.17924 of 2022, pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur ( State of Chhattisgarh Vs Leelaram Sahu, and others ) arising out of Crime No.73 of 2022 registered at Mahila Thana, Raipur against the accused persons Mahendra Kumar Sahu, Smt Binda Bai Sahu and Durga Prasad Sahu, petitioners in CRMP-1716 and the accused personLeelaram Sahu, petitioner in CRMP-1827 of 2024, both these petitions are allowed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties on 21.06.2024.

¶106

Crmp 1716 of 2024 and other connected cases

¶107

¶108

CRR-73 of 2024 also stands disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties on 21.06.2024.

¶109

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶110

padma

Leelaram Sahu v. Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelaram Sahu v. Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu

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

Smt. Sarswati Gupta Vs Deenanath Sharma

Shivnarayan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Patel @ Billa Dan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Tengwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asharam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh