Chattisgarh High Court
Kartik Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:19574-DB
Digitally signed
SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.29
17:10:47 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 938 of 2026
1 - Kartik Soni S/o Late Amritlal Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o Near
Pawar Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Urmila Soni W/o Late Amritlal Soni Aged About 58 Years R/o Near
Pawar Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Samridhi Soni W/o Prem Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Pawar
Bhawan, Changorabhatha, Deen Dayal Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Mahila Thana District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Soniya Soni W/o Kartik Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Near
Old Sheetla Mandir, Behind Cloth Market, Pandari, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
2
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Reena Singh, 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 Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
28.04.2026
1. Heard Ms. Reena Singh, 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:-
“A. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
this petition and quash the FIR as well as entire Charge-
sheet No. 09/2024 dated 15.02.2024 registered in crime no.
06/2024, under section – 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. at Police
Station District- Raipur (C.G.). Mahila Thana,B. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash
the proceeding and cognizance taken on 26.02.2024 by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.), in the Criminal Case No.- 1874/2024.
C. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash
the Charges framed against the petitioners dated
08.08.2025, in the Criminal Case No.-1874/2024 (annex. P-
2) pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged offence punishable
under section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C.
3
D. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly Set-aside and Quash
the entire Criminal proceeding pending against the
petitioners before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.-1874/2024, for
the alleged offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of
I.P.C. and may kindly set free the petitioners from the
aforesaid allegation, in the interest of justice.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that The marriage of petitioner No.
1, Kartik Soni, was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2023 as
per Hindu rites, after which the complainant resided in her matrimonial
home along with the petitioners. On 24.11.2023, the complainant left
the matrimonial house with her brother, taking her ornaments, and did
not return despite efforts made by the petitioners. Subsequently, on
07.01.2024, she lodged an FIR against the petitioners under Section
498-A/34 IPC alleging cruelty and dowry demand. Pursuant thereto,
charge-sheet No. 09/2024 was filed on 15.02.2024 before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and cognizance was taken on
26.02.2024, registering Criminal Case No. 1874/2024. The petitioners
were granted bail on 23.05.2024, and thereafter, charges under Section
498-A/34 IPC were framed on 08.08.2025, which were denied by the
petitioners. The matter is presently pending for prosecution evidence,
with the next date of hearing fixed on 29.04.2026.
4. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the parties have
settled their dispute and entered into the compromise and have settled
the terms and conditions of compromise. The said terms and conditions
of their settlement/ compromise was as under :-
4
1. अनावेदिका श्रीमती सोनिया सोनी को आवेदक कार्तिक सोनी अपने साथ रखने के लिए
अलग से घर लेगा और वहाँ पर अपने साथ रखने के लिए तैयार है।
2. अनावेदिका श्रीमती सोनिया सोनी का कहना है कि यह आवेदक के साथ चार माह तक
रहकर देखेगी और इन चार माह के भीतर अनावेदिका को आवेदक किसी भी बातों पर
परेशान नहीं करेगा तो अनावेदिका सक्षम न्यायालय में लंबित सभी प्रकरणों को वापस ले
लेगी।
3. अनावेदिका द्वारा आवेदक के खिलाफ माननीय कु टुम्ब न्यायालय, रायपुर (छ०ग०) के
समक्ष धारा 125 भरण-पोषण का प्रकरण लंबित है जिसमें 5,000/- दिया जा रहा है उसे भी
चार माह बाद अनावेदिका द्वारा वापस ले लिया जायेगा।
4. आवेदक द्वारा अनावेदिका को ले जाने के लिए 11 मई 2026 को पंढरी रायपुर (छ०ग०)
में स्थित अनावेदिका के घर लेने जाएगा।
उभयपक्ष इस समझौता पत्र की शर्तों से सहमत है एवं पालन के लिए कटिबद्ध है समझौता
पत्र में दी गई शर्तों को उन्होंने अपनी स्वयं की स्वेच्छापूर्वक सहमति एवं बिना किसी दबाव,
भय एवं लालब के स्वीकार किया गया है उभयपक्ष ने इस समझौता पत्र की शर्तों को पढ़ने व
समझने के पश्चात अपनी स्वतंत्र सहमति से परस्पर एक-दूसरे की उपस्थिति में हस्ताक्षर कर
निष्पादित किया।
5. As per the terms of the settlement, petitioner No. 1 has agreed to
take respondent No. 2 (wife) to a separate residence and maintain her
with dignity. The respondent No. 2 has, in turn, agreed to reside with
the petitioner for a period of four months on a trial basis, during which
no harassment shall be caused to her. It has further been agreed that
upon satisfactory cohabitation during the said period, the respondent
No. 2 shall withdraw all pending cases initiated against the petitioners,
including proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the
Family Court at Raipur. The parties have executed the settlement out of
5
their own free will, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure,
and are bound by its terms.
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
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. They are
6
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.”
7
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:-
8
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
9the 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 as well as entire Charge-sheet No 09/2024
dated 15.02.2024 registered in Crime No. 06/2024, under Section 498-
A/34 of IPC at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur and also quash the criminal
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1874/2024 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