1 2025:CGHC:49363-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3016 of 2025 1 - Gajendra Yadav @ Gade S/o Mr. Lakhan Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Lakhan Yadav S/o Bisambhar Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Ajay Yadav S/o Late Pitambar Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Bodhan Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Avinash Yadav S/o Goverdhan Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 6 - Javendra Pal @ Chhotu S/o Hemlal Pal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 7 - Sunil Das Manikpuri @ Pintu S/o Ankeshwar Das Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 8 - Hemant Manikpuri S/o Omprakash Manikpuri Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 9 - Pankaj Yadav S/o Birju Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 10 - Ishwar Yadav S/o Santram Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 11 - Pradeep Pal S/o Chamman Pal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 12 - Praveen Pal S/o Lachchhi Ram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 16:00:58 +0530 2 13 - Khemlal Sinha S/o Late Barsan Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 14 - Karan Yadav S/o Udal Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur. 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, C.G. 3 - Rahul Jangde S/o Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jangde Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Ajay Jangde S/o Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jangde Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Gajendra Jangde S/o Mr. Chetan Jangde Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sakri, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, C.G. 6 - Girdhari S/o Dev Prasad Markande Aged About 30 Years R/o Gudiyari, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 to 6 : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the 3 State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 6. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and after hearing parties in the matter quash the Charge sheet filed in crime number no. 661/2024 (Annexure P-1), order of cognizance dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P- 2), order of framing charges dated 22.05.2025 along with memo of charges (Annexure P-3 Colly) and in effect quash the entire criminal case pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur bearing Sessions case number 12/2025 on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, and/or pass such other orders in favor of the applicant as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Mr. Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondents No. 3 to 6, an FIR bearing Crime No. 661/2024 was registered against the petitioners alleging trespass, damage to household articles and causing injuries, for which the police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and has been registered as Sessions Case No. 12/2025, in which cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed against the petitioners. It is further submitted that 4 there exists a counter case between the parties, as petitioner No. 1 had lodged FIR No. 660/2024 against respondents No. 3 to 6 at the same police station. In the said case, respondents No. 3 to 6 have already been acquitted on the basis of compromise with the present petitioners, which clearly demonstrates that the disputes were private in nature and both sides had settled their differences amicably. Learned counsel submits that a compromise application was also moved before the learned trial Court in the present case, but the same was not considered on the ground that the offences alleged are non-compoundable. It is urged that the compromise has in fact taken place between all the petitioners and the complainants/respondents voluntarily, without any pressure, fear, inducement, or coercion, and therefore the same ought to be given effect to. It is further contended that even though the offences in question are triable by the Sessions Court, the allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose any such serious injury or damage, and the nature of dispute is purely personal and private. In such circumstances, continuance of the criminal proceedings would only result in abuse of the process of law and unnecessary harassment to the parties. 4. Reliance is placed on the settled legal position that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), has ample jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences if the same are of private nature and 5 a genuine compromise has been entered into by the parties. It is thus prayed that the FIR, charge sheet, order of cognizance and framing of charges may kindly be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 3 to 6, fairly submitted that there is a counter version of the incident and, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioners, a counter case was registered against the private respondents and proceeded before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Since the offences therein were compoundable in nature, the proceedings came to an end in acquittal on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, namely, the petitioners and private respondents No. 3 to 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Ali that though the certified copy of the order could not be issued, his submission to that effect may be recorded. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that an application for compromise under Section 359(1) of the BNSS was filed before the learned Trial Court, i.e., the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Raipur, on 12.08.2025. The said application was duly taken on record; however, no order was passed thereon, as is evident from page 6 No. 139 of the present petition. It further transpires that the offences in question are non-compoundable in nature. 8. Nevertheless, it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, if the dispute is essentially private in nature, does not affect society at large, and the parties have genuinely resolved their differences amicably without any coercion, fear, or undue influence, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash the criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. 9. In the present case, both parties have amicably settled their dispute; the compromise has been voluntarily entered into and has also been acted upon in the counter case, which culminated in acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of compromise. Continuation of the present proceedings would thus amount to unnecessary harassment to the parties and would serve no fruitful purpose. The dispute being purely personal and private in nature, no larger public interest is involved, and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, is allowed. FIR No. 661/2024 registered at Police Station 7 Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.), the charge sheet filed thereupon, the order of cognizance taken by the learned Trial Court, as well as the order framing charges in Sessions Case No.12/2025 pending before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, are hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged from all the charges arising out of the said proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu