Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1355-DB

¶3

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 33 of 2026

¶5

NAFR

¶6

1 - Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda S/o Sri Subhash Jinagouda Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 1313, 2nd Cross, M.R.H.B. Colony Bengaluru, 560079. Present Address- 1417 Shore Drive, San Jose, California, USA, 95131

¶7

2 - Smt. Lalitha Jinagouda W/o Mr. Subhash Jinagouda Aged About 64 Years R/o House No. 1313, 2nd Cross, Mr.Hb Colony Bangalore, Basveshwar Nagar, Bagat City, Karnataka, India.

¶8

3 - Mr. Siddharth Jinagouda S/o Mr. Subhash Jinagouda Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 1313, 2nd Cross Mrhb Colony Bangalore, Basveshwar Nagar, Bagat City, Karnataka, India.

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ps Rajnandgaon Kotwali, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Smt. Palak Jain D/o Pawan Kumar Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Apartments, Opposite Labhandih Jain Mandir, Labahandih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492006, Also at : Flat No. T2/10, Tulsi Tower, Near Raipur Naka, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 491441. Present Address : 1735 Dexter Ave N, Apt A 208, Seattle WA 98109, Email [email protected]

¶13

	... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State	: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. AG
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

09.01 .2026

¶18

Heard Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the

¶19

2

¶20

petitioners. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 and Mr.Hariom Rai, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

¶21

The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :

¶22

“(1) To quash the FIR No. 0081/2023 registered at PS Rajnandgaon Kotwali dated 29/01/2023 lodged against the petitioners herein for cruelty under Sections 498-A IPC.

¶23

(2) To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 husband and his wife respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute before the Family Court, Bangalore and the petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Only) to the respondent/wife and as per paragraph 10 of memorandum of settlement deed dated 18.09.2025, respondent No.2 / wife has no objection with respect to quashing of impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0081/2023 dated 29.01.2023 registered against the petitioners, which is subject matter of the present petition. It is further submitted that out of Rs.52,00,000/-, the petitioner No.1 husband has already paid Rs. 42,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs) to respondent No.2 / wife through Demand Draft bearing

¶25

3

¶26

No. 433272 dated 17.09.2025, drawn on State Bank of India, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru and Demand Draft of Rs.10,00,000/- is being paid to the respondent No.2/wife through Demand Draft bearing No. 433273 dated 17.09.2025.

¶27

Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 has accepted the said Demand Draft of Rs.10,00,000/-, payable to respondent No.2/wife (Palak Jain) through Demand Draft bearing No. 433273 dated 17.09.2025, handed over by Mr.Soumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners before the Court and a photocopy of the said Demand Draft along with its receipt is taken on record and marked as Annexure-P/7.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute and the amount so agreed by the petitioners to be paid to the complainant/ respondent No.2 has already been paid to her, the instant petition is allowed . The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0081/2023 dated 29.01.2023 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶30

Chandra

Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritik Sahu Alias Pintu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Chandrakar ( Died) Thorugh Legal Heir, Smt. Chandrika Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Komal Ram

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. G.K Dubey

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sandeep Kumar Tiwari

Chief Municipal Officer Vs Dr. Ravi Shrivastava