2025:CGHC:19623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1113 of 2025

1 - Ram Yadav S/o Dukhharan Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.)

2 - Dukhharan Yadav S/o Late Shri Shivnath Yadav Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District-

Bastar (C.G.)

3 - Shrimani Yadav W/o Dukhharan Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Akash Nagar Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.)

4 - Prabhunath Yadav S/o Shri Noharu Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Infront Of Gulab Lodge, Hospital Ward Kondagaon, P.S.

City Kotwali, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

5 - Asha Yadav W/o Shri Prabhunath Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Infront Of Gulab Lodge, Hospital Ward Kondagaon, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Neetu Yadav W/o Ram Yadav D/o Rajkumar Yadav, R/o Jabdapara, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, PL No.1/State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

30/04/2025 Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/Respondent and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR/Crime No.7/2023 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur(C.G.), charge sheet filed against the petitioners under Section 498-A. 34 IPC (Annexure P/1), cognizance order dated 03.03.2023 and order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 1789/2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by the JMFC, Bilaspur and impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on the ground that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2-complainant has been amicably settled subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the settlement agreement entered between the parties before the Mediation Center of this Court on 15.04.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2- complainant has been amicably settled subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the settlement agreement entered between the parties before the Mediation Center of this Court on

15.04.2025.

4. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 528 of the BNSS read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court inthe matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under:

“15. 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.

16. There has been an out