1 2025:CGHC:49992-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3052 of 2025 1 - Hemant Chandra S/o Ramdayal Chandra Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Kusumjhar, P S Dabhra, Distt. Sakti C.G. 2 - Rohit Rayal S/o Laxman Singh Rayal Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Faguram Chowki, Dist. Sakti C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Range Cyber Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Jonson Ekka S/o Late Jowakim Ekka Aged About 58 Years R/o C 59, Nature City, P.S. Sakri Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Wasim Miyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.09 10:39:10 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.10.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. No. 936/2024, dated 15.12.2024, registered at Police Station Range Cyber Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) under section 318(4) of B.N.S. iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge-sheet No.5/2025, filed on 31.05.2025, for the offence under section 318(4), 61(2), 317(5),111(4), 323,3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act before the learned C.J.M. Bilaspur (C.G.) iv. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 whereby the learned C.J.M. Bilaspur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned 3 chargesheet and registered Criminal Case No.20868/2025 against the petitioners. V. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, Criminal proceedings pending before the 12th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session case no. 192/2025. 2. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 lodged a report against the holders of mobile numbers 7047286277 and 7415521608, alleging that on 07.12.2024, he received a call from an unknown person claiming to be from Axis Bank, Vyapar Vihar Branch, Bilaspur, requesting KYC update. When the complainant expressed his inability to visit the branch, the caller assured him that the process would be completed online. Subsequently, through a WhatsApp call from the second number, the accused obtained the complainant’s personal banking details, including ATM and PAN card information. Thereafter, the complainant’s ATM was blocked, and by 10.12.2024, he discovered that loans amounting to Rs. 26,74,701/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from his account. On the basis of this complaint, Crime No. 936/2024 was 4 registered at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur on 15.12.2024, and the investigation was later transferred to Range Cyber, Bilaspur. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested, and a chargesheet was filed on 31.05.2025 under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(5), 111(4), 323, 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. 3. Upon filing of the chargesheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, took cognizance on 13.06.2025. Since Section 111(4) of BNS is triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter transferred to the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The complainant and petitioners filed an application for compromise under Section 359 of BNS on 11.09.2025. The complainant appeared and submitted an affidavit expressing his unwillingness to pursue prosecution. However, the trial court dismissed the application on the same day, observing that the crime alleged was of a grievous nature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for compromise filed by Respondent No. 2 and the petitioners, despite the complainant having duly stated that the dispute 5 has been amicably settled outside the Court and that there is no dispute between the parties. He further submits that the quashing of an offence in criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and the victim is permissible, and the Court has the power to allow the parties to compound even a non-compoundable offence in appropriate cases. In this regard, he relies on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, contending that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the settled law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the offence in question is of a grievous nature and is non- compoundable under law and the trial Court rightly rejected the application for compromise, therefore, opposes the quashing of the proceedings and submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Upon considering the material on record, the Court finds that the offences involve hefty financial online fraud amounting to Rs. 26,74,701/-,obtained through misuse of banking credentials 6 and OTPs. The offences alleged are serious in nature, involving elements of cheating, forgery and misuse of digital platforms, having wider implications on public trust in financial transaction. The alleged offence is against the Society. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, has categorically held that the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise should not be exercised in cases involving serious or heinous offences, as well as offences having a societal impact or committed under special statutes. 9. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that the offences alleged against the petitioners are not of a private or personal nature, but constitute economic offences affecting public confidence in the banking system. Hence, the compromise entered into between the parties cannot form a valid ground to quash or compound the proceedings. Considering the gravity of the offences and the stage of proceedings, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the compromise application 7 at this stage. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners and no infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10.Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib