1 2025:CGHC:38027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2392 of 2025 1 - Md. Hanif Qureshi S/o Md. Ismail, Aged About 94 Years, R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused No.1). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sanjay Bhushan Pandey S/o Brijbhushan Pandey, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused No.2). 2 - Tikaram Rathiya S/o Manbahal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Head Office, Village- Kalmi, P.H.No. 14, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Then Posted At P.H.No.4, Tehsil- Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused No.3). 3 - Ramkumar Choudhary S/o Ishwar Prasad Choudhary, Aged About 60 Years, Occupation- Agriculturist And Advocate, R/o. Ward No. 12, Jailpara, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Complainant). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 01/08/ 2025 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No. 14/2023, arising SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.04 10:21:59 +0530 2 out of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 45/2019, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order passed by the JMFC, Sarangarh, wherein the respondent No. 1 has been acquitted from the offence under Section 420, 506 of IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3/complainant. 2. The facts of the present case are that the Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506/34 IPC. The dispute involves a land parcel of 1.75 acres in Village Saharanpur, District Raigarh (CG). The Petitioner sold portions of the land to different individuals, including Md. Azim, who later sold a plot to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 allegedly claimed ownership of Respondent No. 3's land and attempted to dispossess him. Respondent No. 3 discovered that the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had executed a false sale deed with incorrect boundaries. After filing police complaints that were not acted upon, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 03.08.2023, passed by the trial court and affirmed by the Revisional Court, allowing the compromise application and acquitting respondent No. 1 of the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, is unsustainable in law. The basis for this 3 submission is that the complainant (respondent No. 3) has entered into a compromise only with co-accused respondent No. 1, pursuant to a settlement in a civil suit, and not with the petitioner. Given the petitioner's objections to partial compounding, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders. 5. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned by the Revisional Court, and also taking into account that there is no statutory prohibition to compounding an offence with respect to some co-accused in a compoundable case, this Court finds no cogent reasons to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court based on the grounds raised by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.