1 2025:CGHC:26105-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 600 of 2020 Sumant Kumar Agrasingh S/o Nandkishore Agrasing Aged About 34 Years R/o 290/1, 2nd Floor, 11th Cros Wilson Garden, Bangalore, South Bangalore (Karnataka)., Karnataka ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dhirendra Kumar Sahu S/o Pardeshi Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Kanwar, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Subhobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.20 15:59:13 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 0187 of 2018 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged written complaint which was ultimately registered as an FIR for commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. It was alleged by the complainant that he is the agent of State Bank of India, Insurance Divison and his job profile involves distribution and selling of the insurance products of SBI to the interested customers and the complainant would then earn commission depending upon the numbers of policies sold by the complainant. It was further alleged that he received an anonymous call wherein the petitioner offered him a proposal that the petitioner would arrange customers for the Life Insurance Products sold by the complainant and that he would earn substantial amount of commission by selling insurance products to the prospective customers. Upon the proposal given by the petitioner, the complainant deposited a substantial amount in the account of company of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner further offered to arrange customers for the complainant by arranging camps in various establishments and that he would get more than 100 to 150 customers for purchase of Life Insurance Products. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the efflux of time, the petitioner and his employer company failed to arrange customers for the complainant and ultimately the complainant lodged the FIR against the petitioner for his failure to arrange customers for the complainant for the purpose of Life Insurance Products. The petitioner failed in the performance of his obligation, and therefore, ultimately an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation, the matter was amicably resolved between the parties, out of free will and consent in a most cordinal manner. The loss suffered by the complainant was recovered by him, and therefore, the complainant submitted his sworn affidavit before the Police authorities i.e. respondent No. 1 wherein he declared his intention that he does not want to press charges and wants to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the present case investigation has already been done and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the evidences already been recorded as well as the trial is in argument stage. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4 8. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel, it is evident that in the present case, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. Hence, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 0187 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan