Ramesh Sonant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1860-DB

¶3

BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.14 11:06:43 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 97 of 2026

¶8

1 - Ramesh Sonant S/o Bhagat Ram Sonant Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Govindan, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

2 - Bhagat Ram Sonant S/o Late Achchheram Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Govindan, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

3 - Dharam Devi W/o Bhagat Ram Sonant, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Govindan, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

4 - Durgeshwari Sonant D/o Bhagat Ram Sonant, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Govindan, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

2 - Smt. Jagriti Sonant W/o Ramesh Sonant, D/o Girdhar Nirala, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gangajal, Ward No. 07, Post Misda, P.S. Nawagarh District- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate No.1-State

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

13.01.2026

¶23

1. Heard Mr.Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 had appeared before the Mediation Center of this Court on 06.10.2025 and compromise has been taken place between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure A/3. As such, there is no need to issue fresh notice to respondent No.2.

¶24

2. By way of this petition under Section 528 BNSS the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

¶25

“1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and after hearing parties in the matter and allow this CRMP and quash FIR no. 31/2023 dated 14.01.2023 and entire charge sheet in which offence are registered under section 498-A and 34 of IPC, quash order and taking cognizance dated 02.08.2023 and the subsequent

¶26

3

¶27

criminal proceeding in criminal case no. 167/2023 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) kindly be quashed/set aside, because it is bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law (ANNEXURE-A/1)colly in the interest of justice.

¶28

2. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, and allow this CRMP and kindly be quashed/set aside order dated 17.11.2025 because the application under section 359(2) of BNSS is being rejected is bad, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law (ANNEXURE-A/5) in the interest of justice.

¶29

3. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the present applicant, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and private respondent No.2 and it is stated that in a proceeding under FA(MAT) No.102/2023 the matter was referred to the Mediation Center of this Court and mediation between the parties has been successfully taken place and on that basis, the parties have filed the compromise agreement before the Court concerned along

¶31

4

¶32

with an application under Section 320(1) CrPC / Section 359(2) of BNSS for compounding the offence stating inter-alia that they have settled their dispute amicably, therefore, criminal case be dropped. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that offence under Section 498A of the IPC is not compoundable and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to direct for compounding of the offence.

¶33

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with this petition.

¶34

5. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

¶35

Another1 has laid down the following principles :

¶36

“61. 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

¶37

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶38

5

¶39

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 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 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.

¶40

In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.”

¶41

6. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana &

¶42

Anr.2 has held as under :

¶43

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband

¶44

2 (2003) 4 SCC 675

¶45

6

¶46

and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

¶47

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

¶48

7. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3

¶49

has examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶50

in offence of non-compoundable nature.

¶51

8. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶52

9. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably and respondent No.2 does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the

¶53

3 (2013) 4 SCC 58

¶54

7

¶55

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Case No.167 of 2023.

¶56

10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Case No.167 of 2023 against the petitioners are hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties on 06.10.2025 before the Mediation Center of this Court.

¶57

Sd/- Sd/-

¶58

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶59

Bablu

Ramesh Sonant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Sonant 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anish Singh Gaotum Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Preeti Sahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parasnath Rajavade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Abhay Kumar Pandey

Narendra Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh