Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
CGHC010075982025 2026:CGHC:32286-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 743 of 2025
1 - Santosh Kumar Sidar S/o Soukhilal Aged About 28 Years
2 - Soukhilal Sidar S/o Sidaruram Aged About 57 Years
3 - Smt. Gangadevi Sidar W/o Soukhilal Aged About 53
4 - Ravikumar Sidar S/o Soukhilal Aged About 35 Years
5 - Smt. Droupati W/o Ravi Kumar Sidar Aged About 32 Years
6 - Mahendra Kumar Sidar S/o Soukhilal Aged About 32 Years
7 - Smt. Kavita W/o Mahendra Kumar Sidar Aged About 30 Years
All R/o Village- Barra, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, District-
Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Anju Lata Sidar W/o Santosh Kumar Sidar Aged About 27 Years R/o Rathore
Colony, Opposite Of Rest House, Sakti, Ward No. 16, P.S. And Tahsil Sakti, District-
Sakti (C.G.) ...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA For Respondent-2 : Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
———————————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
28.07.2026
Crmp 743 of 2025
2
Heard Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Shri SS Baghel, learned GA for the State and Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat,
learned counsel for the private respondent-2.
1. Petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs:
“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and
kindly be pleased to quash the FIR/Crime No.228/2024 registered under
Section 498- A / 34 of IPC dated 22.05.2024 at Police Station Sakti,
District Sakti (CG).
2. That, this Hon’ble Court further be pleased to quash the entire charge
sheet in relating to Crime No.228/2024 registered under Section 498 – A/
34 of IPC dated 22.05.2024 at Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (CG).
3. That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash the order
dated 09.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.34/2025 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti, District Sakti (CG) in which the
cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section under Section
498-A/ 34 of IPC, in the interest of justice.”
2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashment of the charge-sheet filed for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Crime No.228/2024 registered
at Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.), the order dated 09.01.2025 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti taking cognizance in Criminal
Case No.34/2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 allegedly solemnized marriage on 24.03.2023. Petitioner
Crmp 743 of 2025
3
Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1, petitioner Nos.4 and 6 are his
brothers and petitioner Nos.5 and 7 are their respective wives. Respondent
No.2 lodged a written complaint on 22.05.2024 alleging that during the period
from 01.08.2023 to 04.11.2023 the petitioners subjected her to physical and
mental cruelty, on the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.228/2024 came to
be registered under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC. Upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti on 09.01.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations contained
in the FIR and the charge-sheet are vague, omnibus and general in nature, and
no specific overt act or distinct role has been attributed to any of the
petitioners, particularly petitioner Nos.2 to 7, who have been implicated merely
because they are relatives of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that there is
no specific allegation of dowry demand or any particular incident constituting
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The complaint, lodged after
an unexplained delay, is stated to be in continuation of the matrimonial dispute,
which was preceded by several litigations between the parties, including an
FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC in which petitioner No.1 was acquitted by
judgment dated 23.06.2023, besides proceedings under Sections 97 and 98
Cr.P.C. and other related proceedings. It is contended that the present
prosecution has been instituted only to rope in the entire family and that, even
if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, no offence under Section 498-A
IPC is made out, particularly against petitioner Nos.2 to 7. It is further
submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Crmp 743 of 2025
4
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the petition
and submitted that the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and
after due investigation, sufficient material was collected by the investigating
agency leading to filing of the charge-sheet. It is submitted that the learned
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and the truthfulness of the allegations
can only be tested during trial. Learned counsel further submits that the petition
raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Reliance
has been placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra1, Dhanalakshmi v. R.
Prasanna Kumar2 and Koppisetti Subbharao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3
to contend that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-2 would submit that though,
initially, the complainant had raised an objection in the petition and the
mediation between the parties has failed. However, subsequently, they
amicably settled their dispute and in pursuance of their mutual settlement,
parties are withdrawing their respective litigations filed before the learned trial
Court, and therefore, respondent-2 has no objection in quashing of FIR and
charge-sheet against the petitioners in the present case.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
1
(2021)SCC Online SC 315
2
(1990)Supp SCC 686
3
(2009)12 SCC 331
Crmp 743 of 2025
5
8. This Court in order to enable the parties to settle their dispute and to
explore the possibility of settlement, vide order dated 27.02.2025, sent the
parties for mediation to the Mediation Centre of this Court. However, from the
mediation report dated 21.03.2025, it has been reported that the mediation
between the parties failed and thereafter, this Court proceeds to hear the case.
From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires
that after having mediation between the parties before the Mediation Centre of
this Court on 21.03.2025, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and in
furtherance thereof, respondent-2 get her application filed under Section 144
of the BNSS 2023 dismissed for want of prosecution vide order 17.06.2026
from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, Link
Court, Sakti in case No.141 of 2025. Another proceeding under Section 12(1)
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, filed by
respondent-2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti has been
disposed of vide order 16.01.2026 on the basis of compromise between the
parties. Further, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, bearing Civil
Suit No.26A of 2025 filed by the petitioner-1 Santosh Kumar Sidar before the
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakti has also been withdrawn on
29.01.2026 on the ground of compromise between the parties. Copies of
relevant order-sheets have also been annexed by the petitioners on
27.04.2026 along with an application for taking documents on record and the
same has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent-2.
9. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another 4 has
laid down the following principles in para No.61 and 62 that :
4
(2012) 10 SCC 303
Crmp 743 of 20256
“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 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
Crmp 743 of 2025
7
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.
62. 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.”
10. The Supreme Court in case of B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana &
Anr.5 has held in para No.14 and 15 as under :
“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 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.
15. 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.”
11. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi
and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another 6 has examined scope of
compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable
nature.
5
(2003) 4 SCC 675
6
(2013) 4 SCC 58
Crmp 743 of 2025
8
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that parties
have entered into compromise before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Sakti on 29.01.2026 (Annexure P8) and the terms of settlement have
been reduced in writing by the parties. It is necessary to reiterate the terms of
settlement which is as follows:
“उभयपक्ष के मध्य न्यायालय श्रीमान् मुख्य न्यायिक मजि० सक्ती के न्यायालय में
लंबित घरेलू हिंसा के प्रकरण में राजीनामा कर ली है तथा इनके मध्य आपस में
आपसी राजीनामा हो गया है, जिसमें वादी, प्रतिवादी क० 1 को 2,00,000/
रूपये (दो लाख रुपये) में आपसी राजीनामा कर ली है। आपसी राजीनामा के
आधार पर वादी इस प्रकरण को बिना किसी शर्त के वापस लेना चाहता है।
प्रकरण में आगे कार्यवाही नहीं चाहते है। उभयपक्ष अपना-अपना वाद व्यय वहन
करेंगे। उक्त राजीनामा दोनो पक्ष स्वेच्छा से बिना किसी डर, दबाव के राजीखुशी
से कर रहे है, जिसमे दोनों पक्ष सहमत हैं ।
अतः राजीनामा के आधार पर प्रकरण वापस करने का निवेदन किया है।
प्रकरण का अवलोकन किया गया । अवलोकन से दर्शित है कि घोषणात्मक वाद
एवं स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा बाबत पेश किया गया है । प्रकरण में उभयपक्ष के मध्य
आपस में आपसी राजीनामा हो गया है, जिसमें वादी, प्रतिवादी क० 1 को
2,00,000/ रूपये (दो लाख रूपये) में आपसी राजीनामा कर ली है। आपसी
राजीनामा के आधार पर वादी इस प्रकरण को बिना किसी शर्त के वापस लेना
चाहता है। उक्त संबंध में संतोष कु मार सिदार का न्यायालयीन कथन दर्ज किया
गया है । उभय पक्ष के मध्य कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रह जाने से उभय पक्ष द्वारा पेश
आवेदन पत्र अंतर्गत आदेश 23 नियम 3 व्य.प्र.सं. न्यायहित में स्वीकार किया
जाता है और आवेदक/वादी को बिना किसी शर्त के वाद प्रत्याहरण करने की
अनुमति दी जाती है। प्रकरण में उभय पक्ष अपना अपना वाद व्यय स्वयं वहन
करेंगे ।”
13. Having considered the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied
that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and that all
disputes have subsequently been amicably resolved by a genuine and
voluntary settlement, which has been judicially recorded by the competent Civil
Court on 29.01.2026. In view of such settlement, the possibility of respondent
Crmp 743 of 2025
9
No.2 supporting the prosecution case is extremely remote and the likelihood of
conviction has become bleak. The continuation of the criminal proceedings in
these circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would only result in
unnecessary harassment to the parties. Moreover, insofar as petitioners are
concerned, the allegations are admittedly general and omnibus without
attribution of any specific role. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that
continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court and that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is necessary to secure the ends of
justice.
14. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. Consequently, FIR bearing Crime
No.228/2024 registered at Police Station Sakti, District Sakti, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge-
sheet filed pursuant thereto, the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case No.34/2025 taking cognizance
of the offences, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom,
stand quashed qua the present petitioners, subject to fulfillment of the
conditions of the compromise between the parties.
15. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.08.04
18:16:58 +0530
