1 2025:CGHC:18786-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1404 of 2025 1 - Priyanshu Ranjan S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 20 Years R/o Sbi Bhaskar Rao Nagar Sai G.N.R. Residency Plot No. 8/9 Sainikpuri District - Hyderabad (Telangana ) At Present R/o Plot No. -48 ,punapur Road Behind Ram Mandir Bhagwan Society Pardi PO Bhandewadi Distt. Nagpur (Mahrastra) 2 - Rajveer Singh S/o Bharat Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Kalalkaran District - Rajori Jammu Kashmir At Present R/o Prasat Bahara University Baknaghat District - Shimla (H.P) 3 - Temphu Karl Nageh S/o Temphu Rechards Aged About 22 Years R/o Bamenda 3 Nanken Cameroon (Kmeruniyan Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet ) At Present R/o Bahara University Baknaghat District - Shimla (H.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Range Cyber Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Siyasharan Tiwari S/o Late Yagyanarayan Tiwari Aged About 65 Years R/o 877 Shriraj Nagar Mopka P.S. Sarkanda District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.04 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. Megha Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 6062/2024 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in the matter of State of C.G. Vs. Priyanshu Ranjan & others, whereby the application for compromise filed by the complainant and petitioners was partly allowed and petitioners were acquitted from charges under section 420 of IPC and 66(D) of Information Technology Act whereas charges under section 201/34 of IPC has not been quashed on the ground that the offence under section 201/34 of IPC are not compoundable. 3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, is that respondent No.2/complainant had lodged a report against the Mobile No. 7045222477 holder alleging that he has cheated him through online Telegram App in the name of Hotel Review rating and deposited the amount of Rs.27,80,510/- in different account numbers and on the basis of report Crime No. 199/2024 has been registered on dated 09.02.2024 at Police Station, Sarkanda Bilaspur, thereafter on the basis of order of Inspector General of 3 Police, Bilaspur Range the case was handed over to Cyber Range, Bilaspur and during the investigation, petitioners have been arrested and after completing the investigation, chargesheet has been filed under section 420, 201, 34 of IPC and 66(D) of Information Technology Act on dated 06.08.2024. 4. After filing of chargesheet, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance vide order dated 12.08.2024 against the petitioners and the complainant and petitioners have filed an application for compromise (under section 320(2) of CrPC) before the learned trial Court on 28.08.2024. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned trial Court and his statement has also been recorded in which he has categorically stated that he did not want to prosecute the petitioners in criminal case and on the basis of same, the application for compromise was partly allowed and petitioners were acquitted from charges under Section 420 of IPC and 66(D) of Information Technology Act whereas charges under Section 201/34 of IPC has not been quashed on the ground that the offence under section 201/34 of IPC are not compoundable. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for compromise filed by the respondent No.2 and the petitioners, though the complainant has duly stated that the dispute has already been settled between them outside of the Court as the parties have already entered into compromise and there is no dispute in between them. 4 6. Learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent No.2 also admitted the said fact. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and thereafter in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and ultimately, noticing the aforesaid decisions, finally, in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting into criminal proceedings, held as under: - “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. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage 5 occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.” 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the petitioners and the complainant / respondent No.2 have amicably settled their all disputes mutually outside the Court and on the basis of same, the learned trial Court has partly the application filed by the petitioners and acquitted the petitioners from charges under Section 420 of IPC and 66(D) of Information Technology Act whereas charges under Section 201/34 of IPC has not been quashed on the ground that the offence under section 201/34 of IPC are not compoundable. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its inherent power 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the charge-sheet and the FIR as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by means of compromise dated 28.08.2024. 10. In view of the same, the petition is allowed. First Information Report bearing No. 199/2024 dated 09.02.2024 registered at Police Station Range Cyber, Bilaspur, the charge-sheet bearing No. 04/2024 filed on 06.08.2024 and cognizance dated 12.08.2024 and the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 6062/2024 are set aside and petitioners are acquitted from the charges under Section 201/34 of IPC. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra