1 2025:CGHC:34758-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2289 of 2025 Hitesh Choubey S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Choubey Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. K/13, Agroha Society Opposite Maa, Sharda Hospital Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ritu Sharma D/o Shri Purushottam Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Shanti Residency Besides Colours Mall, Near Ganga Diagnosis Near Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2/ Complainant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.23 10:37:42 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/07/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 592/2022 dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) registered by the Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that on 12.08.2021, one Manmohan Singh Gaba lodged a complaint alleging that he has purchased property bearing Khasra No. 260/10 area admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. from Shine City Dream Realtor through registered sale- deed on 22.03.2021, but mutation proceeding could not be done. When the complainant initiated mutation proceeding, it was found that the said land has already been sold thrice. After verification, it was found that the house was sold on the basis of forged documents prepared by Mohammad Javed S/o Abdul Khali. The present petitioner who is resident of U.P. has sold the multi-storied building situated at khasra No. 207/10 area administering 7000 sq fit on 19.05.2021 through registered sale deed to Rupesh Choubey and thereafter Rupesh Choubey sold the property to Ashoka Biryani through proprietor- Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari, on 02.08.2021. It is also found that 3 Mohammad Javed has fabricated the documents to grab the property of the complainant and thus committed offence of conspiracy. On the basis of the complaint and material on record, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC has been registered against the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had filed the Anticipatory Bail in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 206/2023 which has been dismissed by this Court on 10.08.2023. The concerned Police Station filed charge sheet against the other co-accused and registered the Case as Criminal Case No. 515/2025. After filing of the charge sheet, petitioner filed this petition for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compromise entered between the parties. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is facing trial. Learned counsel further submits that there were four accused persons involved in the crime including the present applicant, as far as the two co-accused persons namely; Rupesh Choubey and Mohammad Javed is concerned, the charge sheet has been filed and so far as the present applicant is concerned, investigation is still pending and it has also been stated that the police report would be submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (Now Section 193(3) of the 4 BNSS) before the Magistrate concerned. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the complainant/ respondent No.2. Hence he prayed for quashment of the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant would not oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and agrees with the submission that the compromise has been entered between the parties and the original copy of the compromise deed is also with the complainant/ respondent No.2. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the compromise (copy of which is Annexed as Annexure- P/7) has been entered between the parties, the Investigating Officer is directed to verify the same. Further the parties are directed to appear before the Investigating officer who shall verify the compromise entered between the parties and after verification, submit a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (Now Section 193(3) of the BNSS) before the Magistrate concerned. The concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to monitor the proceedings, which are to be going before the Investigating 5 Officer. 7. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to mention here that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 10/08/2023 passed in MCRCA No. 206/2023. Hence it is not proper for this Court to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction, the instant CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti