Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Harpreet Singh Sandhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1708 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar
The court affirms the power to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes under Section 482 of the CrPC when parties reach a genuine compromise.
Headnote:This Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 296, 115(2), 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the context of a petition for quashing an FIR on the grounds of amicable settlement. The facts established that following a mediation, the parties, including the husband and wife, expressed willingness to resume marital life after compromise was reached before the Mediation Centre on 09.04.2025. The Court found in accordance with established case law that quashing the FIR was justified as the dispute was settled genuinely. The principal issue was whether to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing, especially in matrimonial disputes. The Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the petition was granted, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compromise reached in matrimonial dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. application of inherent power to quash fir. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. outcome: fir quashed. (Para 9) |
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
29.05.2025
1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, and respondent No. 2- Smt. Komal Sandhu, who is appeared along with petitioner No.1-
Harpreet Singh Sandhu who is the husband.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report(FIR) bearing No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh; the consequential proceedings, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 85 read with
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2 and petitioners No. 2 to
6 are the family members of the petitioner No.1 and in-laws of the respondent No.2, and the identity of respondent No.2 has been verified by learned State Counsel through her Adhaar Card and there were matrimonial dispute between the parties and the compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 09.04.2025 before the Mediation Center of this Court. Copy of the Adhaar Card of respondent No.2 has also been annexed with this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre in connection with Anticipatory Bail Application being MCRCA No. 254/2025 and the report of the Mediation Centre indicates that a compromise has been arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, and both have expressed their willingness to resume their marital life, resolve all pending issues, and live together peacefully.
5. Respondent No.2, who is appeared along with petitioner No.1 who is the husband also admitted the said fact.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC 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 in the 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, Their Lordships of 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 outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be l
