1 2025:CGHC:44913-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2635 of 2019 Aswant Das Sahu S/o Shri Bahur Singh Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Tilda Police Station Nevra, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Swati Agrawal D/o Shri Nitesh Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Subhash Chowk, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address In Front Of Agrasen Bhawan Police Station Agartala, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents __________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer :- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge-sheet including F.I.R. No. 16/2018 by the P.S. Tilda Newra, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) and all the subsequent proceedings going in AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.04 11:39:20 +0530 2 Criminal Case No. 161/2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of IPC, pending before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Cláss, Tilda Distt. Raipur (C.G.). And/or any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.01.2018 written complainant lodged by Swati Agarwal/respondent No.2 alleging that the present petitioner has cheated her by representing himself to be the agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC of India) and collected sum of Rs. 26,568/- as a premium amount. Based on the same, FIR was registered against the petitioner at police station Tilda Newra, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the parties jointly filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that they have compounded the offence amicably, but, the learned trial Court after considering the gravity of offence did not gave permission for compounding the offence. Thereafter, revision has also been dismissed by the revisional Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled. He submits that that dispute between the parties was civil in nature. Learned counsel submits that the 3 possibility of conviction of criminal case would put petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the respondent No.2. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and may quash the entire charge-sheet including the FIR registered against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the petitioner. The offence under Section 420 of IPC is only compoundable and the offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC are not compoundable, therefore, the learned trial Court as well as by the revisional Court have not committed error by declining the permission for compounding the offences. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayer made in the petition. 6. The compromise which has taken place between the parties was for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, which is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it transpires from the record that the petitioner was also wanted for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 201 of IPC which were non-compoundable except Section 201 of IPC and the trial Court has rejected the same as also by the revisional Court, 7. As per Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C., the offence of cheating can only 4 be compound with the permission of the Court. The power of the Court given under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. qua compounding of the offence is discretionary in nature and permission for compounding of the offence may be declined, if the Court did not find the case suitable for compromise. Present case is also dependent upon the documentary evidence as well as other ocular evidence so, it can not be said that no purpose would be served by keeping the litigation pending. Thus, at this stage, we do not find any merit or justifiable ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep