Chattisgarh High Court
Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:19286-DB
Digitally signed
SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29
NAFR
17:10:47 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 937 of 2026
1 - Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya S/o Vishwanath Chhapoliya Aged About
30 Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post-
Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha)
2 - Smt. Sangeeta Chhapoliya W/o Vishwanath Chhpoliya Aged About
55 Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post-
Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha)
3 - Vishwanath Chhapoliya S/o Vishwanath Chhapoliya Aged About 57
Years R/o Naya Sadak Katak, Sadar, Police Station Purighat, Post-
Chandani Chowk, Katak, District Katak, District Katak (Oddisha)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
2 - Shreya Chhapoliya (Goinka) W/o Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya S/o
Vishwanath Chhapoliya, D/o Late Shri Anand Prakash Goyanka, R/o
House No. 127, Crest Green Society, Near Disha College, Kota Road
Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
... Respondent(s)
2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
27.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the
Respondent/ State.
2. This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the
petitioners claiming the following reliefs:-
“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the FIR dated 02-02-2025 under Section 498-A/34 of Indian
Penal Code relating to Crime No.09/2025 registered at
Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
and also quash the final report No.49/2025 dated 16-08-
2025 for the offences under Section 498-A/34 of Indian
Penal Code, as well as the entire criminal proceeding in
Criminal Case No.40841/2025 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and
also quash the cognizance taken by the learned trial court
dated 18-09-2025 for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of
Indian Penal Code (C.G.), against the petitioners.
2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between
petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (wife) was solemnized on
3
23.06.2023, after which the complainant alleged that she was subjected
to harassment and cruelty for insufficient dowry while residing with the
petitioners, leading her to lodge a complaint at Mahila Thana, Raipur,
on the basis of which an FIR dated 02.02.2025 was registered under
Section 498-A/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet
No. 95/2025 dated 16.08.2025 was filed, and the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur took cognizance on 18.09.2025 in
Criminal Case No. 40841/2025.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and have jointly filed an application under Section
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Raipur
for divorce by mutual consent, wherein it has been agreed that the
respondent No. 2 shall cooperate in quashment of the criminal
proceedings and withdraw all allegations, and the petitioner No. 1 shall
pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, with all
articles already returned, leaving no dispute subsisting between the
parties.
5. The terms and conditions of their settlement/ compromise is as
under :-
(A). Amongst all the pending cases there is one FIR No. 09/2025
Registered at Mahila Thana- Raipur u/s 498-A of IPC against
Raghav Nandan Chhapoliya, Smt. Sangeeta Chhapoliya and
Vishwanath Chhapoliya. However, today only Party no. 1 is
present. 2nd Party Smt. Shreya has no objection to settle the
matter for absent parties. Against this FIR No. 09/2025 CRMP No.
4937/2026 has been filed and pending before Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh the second party after this agreement will have no
objection for the quashment of the FIR No. 09/2025 as well as
Criminal Case No. 40841/2025 pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class Raipur.
(B). Likewise there is one more FIR No. 0075/2025 BNS 296,
115(2), 308(3), 351(2), 3(5) Registered at Police Station – Purighat
Cuttack, District Cuttack (Oddisha). It is agreed by the parties, that
endeavor will be taken by both the parties for the quashment of the
FIR as well as the Criminal Case if any registered, by filing
application u/s 528 of BNSS.
(C). Apart from the above mentioned cases between the parties
there are two applications filed by the parties for obtaining decree
of divorce. They are as follows:-
(i) Application u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing
case no. 1008/2025 filed by Shreya Chhapoliya Party No. 2
which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Raipur (C.G.)
(ii) Application filed by u/s 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act
bearing Case no. 59/2025 is filed by Raghav Nandan
Chhapoliya Party No. 1 which is pending before Principal
Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.)
(iii) Both the parties want to move on in their respective lives
separately for that matter they want divorce and as agreed
between the parties alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- Lakh is fixed to
5be paid to Shreya out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- has been paid
to Shreya Chhapoliya(Party No. 2) and Rs. 1,00,000/- Lakh
cash has been deposited by Party No. 1 which Shreya
Chhapoliya (Party No. 2) has received on 21.04.2026 today.
A copy of the receipt will be the part of this agreement.
(iv) Some original document Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Driving
License, Passport and Mark sheet are also demanded by
Shreya Chhapoliya Party No. 2 but Party No. 1 denies to
have it with him, still just in case it is traceable will be
returned back to Shreya Chhapoliya (Party No. 2).
(v) Apart from the above mentioned alimony parties have no
transaction left in future, they will not be filling any criminal
case, Civil Case against each other and every marital
obligations towards each other are terminated by this
agreement.
(vi) The divorce case filed by the Party no. I will be withdrawn
and this settlement deed will be filed & submitted before
Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.
1008/2025 for drawing the decree or divorce by properly
filing the application in this regard..
(vii) From the entire amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- Lakh only Rs.
1,50,000/-has been left to be paid that will be paid before
Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on the date of final decree of
divorce through a Demand Draft passed by the Family Court,
Raipur in Case No. 1008/2025.
6
(viii) As agreed by both the parties that they will never disturb
their future lives and will not try to malign their reputation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of
the aforesaid amicable settlement, it is humbly prayed that this Court
may be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the criminal
proceedings arising out of the FIR registered under Section 498-A/34
IPC.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. 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.
9. 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
7
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 20, 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestice
Violence Act, 2005 and also under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:- 10 to 15 paras
“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.
11. 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.
12. 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:
“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:
“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes.”
8
13. 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 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 non-compoundable
offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.
14. 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.
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.”
11. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in
the 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.
12. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
9
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 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
10the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
13. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is
purely matrimonial in nature and has been amicably settled through
mediation, this Court finds that continuation of the criminal proceedings
would be an exercise in futility and would adversely affect the chances
of reconciliation. The settlement arrived at between the parties appears
to be voluntary and genuine.
14. Therefore, 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 528
of BNSS, quash the FIR dated 02.02.2025 registered in Crime No.
09/2025, under Section 498-A/34 of IPC at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur
and also quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.
40841/2025 against the petitioners/accused persons, pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence
under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, on the basis of compromise so entered
into between the parties, subject to fulfillment of the terms and
conditions of the compromise.
15. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Sagrika
