KHOMAN LAL RATRE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 11

CGHC010325342026 2026:CGHC:46109
NAFR
PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
Date: 2026.10.31
17:10:51 +0530
CRMP No. 2187 of 2026
1. Khoman Lal Ratre S/o - Mohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 30 Years
2. Mohan Lal Ratre S/o - Mahajan Ratre, Aged About 72 Years
3. Dujbai Ratre, W/o Mohan Lal Ratre Aged About 62 Years
4. Mona Urf Sunita, W/o Mohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 26 Years
5. Shashi, D/o Mohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 35 Years
6. Manju Urf Rajkumari, D/o Monan Lal Ratre, Aged About 38 Years
All are R/o - Village - Bhatgaw P. S. - Ranchirai, District - Balod. C.G.
... Petitioners
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. - Ranchirai, District - Balod,
Chhattisgarh, (Wrongly Mention As Ranchi In The Cause Title)
2. Smt. Dhnujla Ratre Ex - W/o Khoman Lal Ratre, After Her
Remarriage The Name Of Her Present Husband - Vishvnath, Aged
About 25 Years R/o Bhatgaon, P. S. - Ranchirai, District - Balod,
C.G. Present Address - Village - Godmarra, P. S. - Suregaon, District
- Balod C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
30.10.2026
1. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')

2 / 11
challenging the order dated 29.07.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.
264/2022 by which learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gunderdehi, District Balod, has rejected the application filed under
Section 320(1) & (2) of Cr.PC. for compounding of the offence under
Section 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 76/2021 registered at police
station Ranchirai.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the marriage of petitioner No.1
Khoman Lal Ratre with respondent No.2 Smt. Dhnujla Ratre was
solemnized on 26.05.2021 at Village Thuha, District Dhamtari (C.G.),
according to Hindu rites and customs. After some time of marriage,
certain matrimonial disputes arose between them. Respondent No.2
alleged that petitioner No.1 used to consume liquor, pressurize her
to convert to Christianity and adopt Christian culture, and did not
permit her to celebrate Hindu festivals. On the basis of the said
allegations, respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station
Ranchirai, District Balod, on 31.07.2021, pursuant to which Crime
No.76/2021 was registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police filed
a charge-sheet before the competent Court, where Criminal Case
No.264/2022 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gunderdehi, District Balod.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of
the criminal proceedings, matrimonial relationship between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 came to an end and they

3 / 11
obtained a decree of divorce on 19.06.2025. Thereafter, respondent
No.2 remarried and is residing with her present husband, namely
Vishwanath. It is further submitted that the parties and their family
members have amicably resolved their disputes and have
established cordial relations. Respondent No.2 does not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. In view of
the settlement, the parties jointly moved an application dated
29.07.2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gunderdehi, seeking permission to compound the offences;
however, the said application was rejected by the impugned order
dated 29.07.2026, merely on the ground that the offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC is non-compoundable. Learned counsel,
therefore, submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose and prays that the impugned order
be set aside and the criminal proceedings be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the learned trial
Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application filed
under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is
admittedly non-compoundable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. From the pleading and the record available, it appears that the
marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was

4 / 11
solemnized 26.05.2021, and thereafter, on account of certain
matrimonial disputes, respondent No.2 lodged the report, pursuant
to which Crime No.76/2021 was registered at Police Station
Ranchirai for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34
of the IPC. The parties subsequently obtained a decree of divorce on
19.06.2025, and respondent No.2 remarried. During the pendency of
the criminal proceedings, the parties resolved their disputes and
jointly moved an application before the learned trial Court for
compounding the offences. However, learned trial Court rejected the
application on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A of
the IPC is non-compoundable.
7. This Court, vide order dated 14.10.2026, directed the Additional
Registrar (Judicial) to record the statements of the petitioners as well
as respondent No.2. Pursuant thereto, the parties appeared before
the Additional Registrar (Judicial), and their statements were
recorded on the same day.
8. In her statement, respondent No.2, Smt. Dhanujla Ratre, has stated
that she had obtained divorce from petitioner No.1 on 19.06.2025
and thereafter remarried. She has further stated that all disputes
between her and the petitioners have been amicably resolved,
cordial relations have been restored, and she does not wish to
continue or pursue any legal proceedings against the petitioners.
She has also categorically stated that the settlement has been
arrived at voluntarily, without any fear, pressure or inducement, and

5 / 11
that she does not want any further proceedings in Criminal Case
No.264/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gunderdehi.
9. Similarly, petitioner No.1, Khoman Lal Ratre, as also petitioners No.
2, 3, 5 & 6, has also affirmed the settlement. Petitioner No. 1 stated
that he and respondent No.2 have dissolve their marriage by decree
of divorce, respondent No.2 has remarried, and all disputes between
them have been amicably resolved. He further stated that the parties
have restored cordial relations and respondent No.2 does not wish
to pursue the criminal proceedings against him or the other
petitioners. Thus, both sides have unequivocally affirmed the
settlement and expressed their willingness to put an end to the
pending criminal proceedings.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
and Another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , while considering the
exercise of inherent powers of the High Court involving offences
under Section 498-A of the IPC, has held as under:
“ 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in view
in matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that
there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to
settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission
of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are

6 / 11
also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it
out in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their
"young" days in chasing their "cases" in different
courts.
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.”
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , while
considering the scope of inherent powers of the High Court in respect
of non-compoundable offences, has held that merely because an
offence is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the
High Court is not precluded from exercising its inherent powers to
quash the criminal proceedings where the dispute is essentially
private in nature and the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

7 / 11
The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are
as under:
“ 41 . In Shiji vs. Radhika [(2011) 10 SCC 705] this
Court considered the exercise of inherent power by
the High Court under Section 482 in a matter where
the offence was not compoundable as the accused
was already involved in commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 394 IPC. The
High Court rejected the prayer by holding that the
offences with which appellants were charged are not
‘personal in nature’ to justify quashing the criminal
proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at
between the complainant and the appellants. This
Court considered earlier decisions of this Court, the
provisions contained in Sections 320 and 394 of the
Code and in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 (pgs. 712 and
713) of the Report held as under:
“17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is
not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by
itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise
of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power
can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there
is no chance of recording a conviction against the
accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined
to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle
distinction between compounding of offences by the
parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one
hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to
quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the
other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an
appeal against conviction, may not be competent to
permit compounding of an offence based on a
settlement arrived at between the parties in cases
where the offences are not compoundable under
Section 320, the High Court may quash the
prosecution even in cases where the offences with
which the accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that
purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.

8 / 11
18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the
plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by
itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to
exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The
width and the nature of the power itself demands that
its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the
High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear
view that continuance of the prosecution would be
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is
neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the
situations in which the exercise of power under
Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say
is that the exercise of power must be for securing the
ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to
exercise that power may result in the abuse of the
process of law. The High Court may be justified in
declining interference if it is called upon to
appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of
an appellate court while dealing with a petition under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject
to the above, the High Court will have to consider
the facts and circumstances of each case to determine
whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers
may be invoked.
19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view
that the incident in question had its genesis in a
dispute relating to the access to the two plots which
are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad
daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its
origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which
dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That
being so, continuance of the prosecution where the
complainant is not ready to support the allegations
which are now described by her as arising out of
some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be
a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is
noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who
are closely related to the complainant, are also no
longer supportive of the prosecution version. The
continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an
empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such
circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High

9 / 11
Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and
thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts
below. ”
12. In the case of Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another , reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
“ 6. Section 498-A of the IPC is non-compoundable.
Section 4 of the Dowry Act is also non-
compoundable. It is not necessary to state that non-
compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a
Court. While considering the request for
compounding of offences the Court has to strictly
follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is,
therefore, not possible to permit compounding of
offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section
4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine
compromise between husband and wife, criminal
complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be
quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-
compoundable, because such offences are personal in
nature and do not have repercussions on the society
unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc. (See
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]) .
If the High Court forms an opinion that it is
necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or to secure ends of
justice, the High Court can do so. The inherent power
of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is
not inhibited by Section 320 of the Code. Needless to
say that this Court can also follow such a course. ”
13. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is
apparent that the criminal proceedings have arisen out of matrimonial
discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The marriage
between them has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce

10 / 11
dated 19.06.2025, and respondent No.2 has remarried. The parties
have settled their disputes and are no longer interested in pursuing
the criminal proceedings against each other. Their statements
recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 14.10.2026
further establish that the settlement is genuine, voluntary and without
any fear, pressure or inducement. Respondent No.2 has specifically
stated that she does not wish to proceed against any of the
petitioners.
14. It is true that the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is non-
compoundable and the learned trial Court was not empowered to
permit its compounding under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. However,
this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS
can consider the application for compounding of offence in the facts
and circumstances of the case, to secure the ends of justice. The
allegations in the present case arise out of a matrimonial dispute and,
it does not disclose any offence of such a nature as would have a
serious impact on society at large. Further, respondent No.2, who is
the complainant, the principal aggrieved person, has herself settled
the dispute and relationship with complainant became cordial.
15. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners, despite the parties having settled their
matrimonial disputes and respondent No.2 having categorically
expressed her unwillingness to proceed further, would serve no
fruitful purpose and would only result in unnecessary continuation of

11 / 11
litigation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present case is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to
secure the ends of justice.
16. For the foregoing, considering the nature of allegations, the
subsequent developments, the voluntary settlement between the
parties and the statements recorded before the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) High Court, this Court is inclined to allow the petition.
17. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gunderdehi, District Balod, in
Criminal Case No.264/2022 is hereby set aside. Further, the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case
No.264/2022, arising out of Crime No.76/2021 registered at Police
Station Ranchirai, District Balod, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, are hereby quashed.
18. The petition is accordingly allowed .
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
Judge
pwn