1 2025:CGHC:37128-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2367 of 2025 Smt. Gulshana Alias Shalini Kumari W/o Narendra Pratap @ Pankaj Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o N -116/385 Badligaon, Police Station Samaypur - Badli, District North West Delhi, New Delhi ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli C.G. 2 - Bajrang Sahu S/o Gitaram Sahu, aged about 34 years R/o Ward No. 12, Sargaon, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Respondent No.2 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Wasim Miyam, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 3311/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) titled as (C.G. State Vs. Gulshana alias Shalini Kumari & 2 others) and charge-sheet No. 167/2024 arising out of FIR No. 153/2024 registered at Police Station- Sargaon, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) on the basis of compromise entered between the petitioner and the complainant / respondent No.2. 3. Prosecution story, in brief is that, on 06.10.2024 a written complaint was made before Police Station - Sargaon, District - Mungeli(C.G.) by Complainant (Bajrang Sahu) alleging that on the evening of 04.10.2024, some unknown person has withdrawn about 15 lakh 35 rupees 40 paise from his and his brother's joint account, which was communicated through SMS by way Mobile Alert. On the basis of said complaint, the Crime was registered as FIR No.153/24 for offence punishable u/s 318, (4) of BNS. Thereafter the matter was taken up for investigation, after receiving the report from Cyber Cell Mungeli, a special team was sent to Delhi for investigation, with the help of local police, raided the possible places and from the present petitioner and two other co-accused persons and recovery of total of Rs. 4 lakh 20 thousand cash, fake ID, Aadhar card, Biometric device have been duly seized and Total Rs. 3,38,500/- had been kept on hold in the bank accounts of the accused person. Six mobile phones used by 3 the accused persons were also been seized. The said accused persons were duly arrested on 26.10.2024 at 17:30, 17:40, 17:50 respectively and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohinipur, New Delhi, and transit remand was obtained till 29.10.2024 for producing accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District- Mungeli(C.G.) from where judicial remand of the accused was approved till 12.11.2024 and after the jail warrant was issued by the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, accused 01. Anil Kumar 02. Pankaj alias Narendra Pratap were sent to District Jail Mungeli and female accused Gulshana alias Shalini Kumari along with her son Daksh Pratap, aged about 04 years, were sent to Women's Jail Bilaspur. 4. Thereafter, other mentioned account holders, Shagun Arora and Kodari Sai Kiran, on whose account some transactions were made, will also be traced separately, by collecting evidence and separately registering a case under Section 193 (9) BNSS. Permission has been obtained from the Superintendent of Police to prepare a supplementary chargesheet under the Act. After investigation Chargesheet No. 167/2024 was filed on 24.12.2024 before the Trial Court. On 17.01.2025 Charges were framed against the present Petitioner alongwith other two co-accused. During the course of trial, the petitioner and Complainant/ respondent No.2 had amicably settled their dispute, therefore the complainant presented an application u/s 359(2) of BNSS seeking 4 permission to compound the offence leveled against the petitioner, on the basis of compromise, but the trial Court refused to accept the application, for the reason that the present case is a time bound case which has to be disposed-off within 6 months as per the order of Hon'ble C.G. High court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the complainant / respondent No.2 had had amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise on 21.07.2025 and copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-P/3 at page 192 of this petition. It is stated that the learned trial Court has taken the said compromise deed on record for the reason that the present case is a time bound case which has to be disposed- off within 6 months as per the order passed by this Court rejecting the bail application of the co-accused. It is further pointed out that husband of the petitioner is also an accused in the present case, but, after lodging of the present case, the relationship between the petitioner and her husband has become uncordial and her husband has deserted her (the petitioner). 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that though the compromise has taken between petitioner and the complainant as it was an online fraud, Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner and she has paid back the same to the complainant, but so far as the co-accused, namely, Narendra Pratap alias Pankar Kumar, who is husband of the petitioner and another co-accused Anil Kumar are concerned, compromise has 5 not been taken place with them. 7. We have perused the impugned FIR and the materials available on record. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and relationship between the petitioner and her husband, who is a co-accused, has become uncordial because of the present incident and he has also deserted her and further considering the fact that the petitioner has also paid amount to the complainant and compromise deed has also been executed between them, the learned trial Court is directed to the compromise deed entered between the parties and pass appropriate orders and proceed against the co-accused persons with whom no compromise has taken place, if there is no legal impediment. The petitioner is directed to move an application before the trial Court about passing of this order and the same shall be decided by the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. 10. The original copy of the compromise deed (Annexure-P/3) be returned back to the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra