1 2025:CGHC:40933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 683 of 2016 Fatteram Chouhan S/o Budhuram Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Patandadar, P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Complainants : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board, 13/08/2025 1. The applicant/accused - Fatteram Chouhan and the complainants, namely, Rameshwar Chouhan, Smt. Geeta Chouhan, Madan Lal Sahu, Jitendra Kumar Nishad, Rahamtullah Khan, Shakil Khan @ Abdul Shakil Khan, Dashrath Kaiwart, Purushottam Kaiwart and legal heirs of the deceased complainant Ganga Prasad Dubey, namely, Amit Kumar Dubey (son) and Smt. Urmila Dubey (wife) are present in person before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( hereinafter ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by 1st Additional Sessions PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.14 16:16:06 +0530 2 Judge, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.123/2011 arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, in Criminal Case No.744/2009 convicting the present applicant/accused for the offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Heard I.A. No.2/2025, an application under Section under Section 359(4)(b) of Bhartiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) / under Section 320(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of permission to compromise between the applicant/accused and legal heirs of complainant – Ganga Prasad Dubey (deceased). Also heard I.A. No.3/2025, application under Section 359 of Bhartiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita, 2023 / under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. filed by the other complainants for grant of permission to compromise with the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainants submits that during pendency of the present revision before this Court, one of the complainants, namely, Ganga Prasad Dubey has died on 25.05.2017 (death certificate is annexed as Annexure D-1). He further submits that Amit Kumar Dubey and Smt. Urmila Dubey, son and widow of the deceased Ganga Prasad Dubey respectively, are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganga Prasad Dubey and are competent and also authorised persons to seek compromise with the applicant – Fatteram Chouhan and in support thereof, they have filed affidavit. 5. Similarly, learned counsel for other complainants further submits that the matter has been compromised between the applicant and the complainants. He further submits that during proceedings of trial, another co-accused 3 person, namely, Dilip Sagar has compromised the matter with the complainants and he has been acquitted of the charge framed against him vide order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoura. He further submits that the offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC is a compoundable offence and, therefore, the applicant/accused and the complainants and that the legal heirs of the deceased complainant Ganga Prasad Dubey have voluntarily compromised the matter between themselves. Looking to the compromise arrived at between the parties, it is prayed that the applications (I.A. No.2/2025 and I.A. No.3/2025) may be allowed and the applicant – Fatteram Chouhan may be acquitted of the offence levelled against him on the basis of compounding of the offence. 6. Learned State counsel has not opposed the above prayer made by learned counsel for the complainants. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the legal heirs of the deceased complainant Ganga Prasad Dubey and other complainants are present in person before this Court who do not want to prosecute the matter against the applicant – Fatteram Chouhan, furthermore, the legal heirs and other complainants have also stated that they have filed applications for compounding the offence, without any threat, coercion or pressure, in support of which affidavits have also been filed by them, this apart, during proceedings of trial, another co-accused person, namely, Dilip Sagar has compromised the matter and he has been acquitted of the charge framed against him vide order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoura, and further considering the fact that offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC is a compoundable offence, and looking to the provision contained under Section 359(8) of BNSS / Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. to the effect that the compounding of an offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.02/2025 4 and I.A. No.03/2025. 8. In view of the above, the applicant – Fatteram Chouhan is acquitted under Section 420/34 of the IPC. 9. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of. 10.Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash