1 2025:CGHC:51517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3141 of 2025 1 - Maniram Baiga S/o Shri Panch Ram Baiga, Aged About 60 Years R/o Seepat N.T.P.C., Near Anand Chowk, Police Station Seepat District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Thelkadih, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Tilak Verma S/o Garib Das, Aged About 31 Years R/o Motipur Ganeshpara, Ward No. 05, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Anurag Verma, Advocate. For State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 15.10.2025 1. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking for quashment of Criminal Case No. 505/2022 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, district Rajnandgaon and set aside the order dated 19.04.2023 based on which offence under Sections 420, 467,468,471,34 IPC registered against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case is that on 20.02.2022, the complainant filed a written complaint at police station Thelkadih alleging that after verifying all the relevant documents, he purchased the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 68/3, rakba 01.098 hectares from one of the co-accused 2 person namely Chetan Verma for consideration of Rs. 6,80,000/- and alleged that after purchasing the said land, when he went to take the possession of the said land, he found that there is no land of Khasra No. 68/3 as mentioned in the registered sale deed executed by the accused person. Thereafter he filed a complaint against one of the accused person namely Chetan Verma and the concerned patwari who prepared forged documents and cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been registered for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 IPC. 3. Subsequently, an inquiry is said to have been conducted and in the course of inquiry it was revealed that the name of the petitioner and one co-accused namely Mani Ram Baiga were also included. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in the FIR name of the petitioner was not mentioned but after investigation, the name of the petitioner has been added. He submits that there is no material on record that the petitioner has committed any such offence or participated in the said crime. However, It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the matter pertains to offence registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,34 of IPC has been amicably settled between both the parties and complainant has no more grievance against the petitioners. He further submits that they have entered into an agreement on 03.08.2022 to return the entire amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and had given the amount through RTGS No. SBINR52022080397573765 and after receiving the entire consideration of the alleged amount have jointly filed the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and the agreement 3 was executed before the trial court. Therefore, continuance of proceedings before the trial Court will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of the parties. It is submitted that the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C filed before the trial court has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 has received the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- through RTGS and after receiving the entire consideration, they have jointly filed the application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and the agreement has been executed before the trial court and therefore he does not want to prosecute the petitioner. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the parties have already entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute amicably. They have recorded their evidence before the Registrar (Judicial) on 15.10.2025 and they have deposed that they have amicably settled their dispute. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment of non- compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-à-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this 4 Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 883. Paragraph no.49, 52, 53 and 57 of the aforesaid judgments are reads as under: “49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not 5 interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such 5 like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair 6 or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding” 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also keeping in view the fact that parties have arrived at amicable settlement and they have recorded their statements before the Registrar (Judicial) and looking to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Ram Singh (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.505/2022 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon CG. 10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 58/2022 and the Criminal Case No. 505/2022 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC with respect to petitioner-Maniram Baiga are hereby quashed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder