1 2025:CGHC:52087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2337 of 2025 1 - Smt. Parvati Banjare W/o Shri Dhaniram Banjare, Aged About 39 Years Caste - Satnami, Proprietor - Deepti Builder And Coloniser, R/o Ward No. 18/19, Deepti Vihar Colony, Janjgir, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Shri Dhaniram Banjare, S/o Late Jethu Ram Banjare, Aged About 52 Years Caste - Satnami R/o Ward No. 18/19, Deepti Vihar Colony, Janjgir, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Shri Govind Sahu, S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 59 Years Caste - Teli. R/o Rajapara, Bodasara, Naila, P.S. And Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Complainant. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Siddhi Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.07 18:09:25 +0530 2 17/10/2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 09-05-2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 1628 of 2023, whereby the application under Section 320(2) of CRPC filed by the complainant for permission to compound the offence has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the accused persons in the Criminal Case No. 1628 of 2023, which was arising out of the Crime No. 157 of 2023, registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of IPC on the complaint made by the complainant/respondent No. 2- Govind Sahu. It is alleged in the FIR that, the accused persons were running a firm in the name of Deepti Builders. They had sold the house No. B-11, which was in the name of some other person, to him for the total consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs and obtained the sale consideration in their bank account running at State Bank of India bearing account No. 35579766227, but have not delivered the possession of the said house and thereby cheated him. It is also alleged that, after the registration of the sale deed, they deducted the registration charges of Rs. 2,50,000/- and refunded him Rs. 2,00,000/-. They have also got certain papers signed from him and got a home loan sanctioned from SBI, Station Road, Naila and the amount of Rs. 29 lakhs, which was 3 of his home loan transferred in the aforesaid bank account directly from the SBI and evading for delivery of the possession of the purchased house. On the complaint made by the complainant/ respondent No.2, the FIR was registered against the petitioners and after investigation charge sheet has been filed, on which the Criminal Case No. 1628 of 2023 is registered and pending before the learned trial Court. 3. During the pendency of the criminal case, the present petitioners/ accused persons and the respondent No.2/complainant entered into compromise and executed a deed of compromise on 06-05-2025 and the copy of the said deed of compromise has also been annexed in the present petition as Annexure P/6. The relevant conditions of the compromise deed are reiterated hereinunder for ready reference:- “1) यह कᔿ ्䵚थम प्䵌र न⡇ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र स㡇 कᔿन⡇ 05.09.2018 कᔿ कᔿहर ल㉋न⡇ ज᱉ज᱉गᝀर फ⭇ स㡇-4 म खस㡇र न⡇. 4402/3 म स㡇 22x47= 1034 गᝀफ⭇ ट भⵂ#कᔿम ए उस㡇 पर 1700 गᝀ फ⭇ ट (भⵂ#-त⑀ल㉋ ए ्䵚थम त⑀ल㉋) पर भⵂन⡇ कᔿन⡇मण रन⡇ एम'श㙍त⑀ रकᔿ) भⵂ'गᝀत⑀न⡇ )त⑀ पर 35,00,000/- रあपय (प+त⑀स㡇 ल㉋ख रあपय) म स㡇, त⑀य र इररन⡇म कᔿन⡇ष㝍पकᔿत⑀ कᔿय थ। 2) यह कᔿ इररन⡇म कᔿन⡇ 05.09.2018 पल㉋न⡇ म कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र कᔿ कᔿ0ल㉍डस㡇 र कᔿन⡇ 20.09.2018 कᔿ कᔿहर ल㉋न⡇ खस㡇र न⡇. 4402/3 म स㡇 1034 गᝀफ⭇ ट भⵂ#कᔿम 1700 गᝀफ⭇ ट भⵂन⡇ कᔿन⡇मण कᔿ्䵅य कᔿल㉋ख ्䵚थम प्䵌र प्䵌 म कᔿन⡇ष㝍पकᔿत⑀ र पज᱉4 त⑀ रय गᝀय ह5, ज᱉ भⵂ#कᔿम आज᱉ भⵂ ्䵚थम प्䵌र न⡇म पर ज᱉ ह5। 4 3) यह कᔿ कᔿन⡇ 20.09.2018 पज᱉4 त⑀ कᔿ्䵅य कᔿल㉋ख मध❍यम स㡇 उ्䴹 कᔿणत⑀ स㡇म⹍पቈ䢌; ्䵚थम प्䵌 न⡇ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌 स㡇 ्䵅य कᔿय ए आज᱉ कᔿन⡇ त⑀ 29,00,000/-रあपय (उन⡍त⑀स㡇 ल㉋ख रあपय) ्䵚थम प्䵌र न⡇ अपन⡇ गᝀ4ह ऋण खत⑀ स㡇 कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र ्䵚न⡇ कᔿय। 4) यह कᔿ अ0 ्䵚थम प्䵌 कᔿत⑀य प्䵌 स㡇 उ्䴹 भⵂन⡇ ल㉋न⡇ इचᩍछᭁ' न⡇हA ह5 त⑀थ ्䵚थम प्䵌 उ्䴹 प⩍ल㉋ट न⡇. 0-11 आ0टन⡇ स㡍य कᔿन⡇रस㡍त⑀ र ቈ䢌ल㉋य ह5 त⑀थ भⵂ'गᝀत⑀न⡇ गᝀई रकᔿ) म स㡇 10,05,000/- रあपय (स㡇 ल㉋ख पEच हज᱉र रあपय) च ए 0+ एउण⍍ट टHस㡇फ⭇र मध❍यम स㡇 ्䵚 र च' ह+। 5) यह कᔿ ्䵚थम प्䵌र न⡇ ल㉋न⡍त⑀र म रर रयप'र म स㡇, प#ण रम भⵂ'गᝀत⑀न⡇ र न⡇ पर भⵂ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌 र मन⡇ न⡇हA न⡇ ्䵚रण ्䵚स㡍त⑀'त⑀ कᔿय गᝀय थ, ज᱉ कᔿ खर〿रज᱉ ह गᝀय ह5। उस㡇 0 ्䵚थम प्䵌र र थन⡇ ज᱉Jज᱉गᝀर म ए कᔿ)यत⑀ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र कᔿरあ्䵍 प5स㡇 ल㉋र भⵂन⡇ न⡇हA न⡇ स㡇0ध म गᝀई ह5, ቈ䢌ज᱉स㡇 पर कᔿ थन⡇ ज᱉ज᱉गᝀर म कᔿन⡇ 24.02.2023 अपरध ्䵅. 157/2023 अत⑀गᝀत⑀ धर 420, 1200 ए 34 ..कᔿधन⡇ पज᱉0्䵍 र कᔿचन⡇ ह रह ह5। 6) 0ह कᔿ न⡇M प्䵌M न⡇ कᔿ0न⡇ कᔿस㡇 डर-0 ए ल㉋ल㉋च स㡍त⑀्䵔 स㡇हमकᔿत⑀ यह स㡇मझᵌ,त⑀ कᔿय ह5 कᔿ अ0 ्䵚थम प्䵌र उ्䴹 भⵂ#खण⍍ड पर भⵂन⡇ कᔿन⡇मण न⡇हA रन⡇ चहत⑀ ह+ इस㡇ቈ䢌ल㉋ए कᔿत⑀य प्䵌 स㡇 उ्䴹 भⵂ#खण⍍ड/भⵂन⡇ न⡇हA ल㉋गᝀ। ्䵚थम प्䵌र अपन⡇ भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र म 4402/ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र पस㡇 0चन⡇ स㡇, त⑀य र 10,05,000/-रあपय (इस㡇 ल㉋ख पEच हज᱉र रあपय) अकᔿPम ्䵚 र ቈ䢌ल㉋य ह+ त⑀थ )ष रम 0ल㉋ कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र अन⡍य्䵔 )र मगᝀल㉋म पस㡇 ቝ嶌स㡍थत⑀ भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र न⡇. 4546/2 म स㡇 र0 34x50= 1700 गᝀ फ⭇ ट प⩍ल㉋ट ल㉋न⡇ चहत⑀ ह+. ቈ䢌ज᱉स㡇 ्䵚कᔿत⑀फ⭇ल㉋ 5 रकᔿ) 29,00,000/- रあपय (उन⡍त⑀स㡇 ल㉋ख रあपय) ह5। ्䵚थम प्䵌र कᔿ) कᔿहर ल㉋न⡇ भⵂ#खण⍍ड/भⵂन⡇ . 0-11 कᔿ्䵅य )ष रम 29,00,000/- रあपय (उन⡍त⑀स㡇 ल㉋ख रあपय) ्䵚 रन⡇ ह5, ቈ䢌ज᱉स㡇 स㡇मयज᱉न⡇ भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र न⡇. 4546/2 म स㡇 34x50 1700 गᝀ फ⭇ ट प⩍ल㉋ट ्䵚कᔿत⑀फ⭇ल㉋ म कᔿय ज᱉ रह ह5। प्䵌 ्䵅. 2 भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र न⡇. 4546/2 म स㡇 र0 34x50 1700 गᝀ फ⭇ ट प⩍ल㉋ट प्䵌 ्䵅.01 ' ल㉋ 29,00,000/- रあपय म 0च रह ह+ त⑀थ न⡇गᝀ ्䵚कᔿत⑀फ⭇ल㉋ 0ल㉋ रकᔿ) स㡇मयज᱉न⡇ कᔿ कᔿहर ल㉋न⡇ ቝ嶌स㡍थत⑀ भⵂ#खण⍍ड/भⵂन⡇ ्䵅. 0-11 भⵂ'गᝀत⑀न⡇ प#ण र रह ह+। यह कᔿ ्䵚थम प्䵌र भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र न⡇. 4546/2 म स㡇 34x50 1700 गᝀ फ⭇ ट प⩍ल㉋ट ्䵚 रन⡇ 0 कᔿ कᔿहर ल㉋न⡇ ቝ嶌स㡍थत⑀ भⵂ#खण⍍ड/भⵂन⡇ . 0-11 कᔿ्䵅य ्䵚कᔿत⑀फ⭇ल㉋ ्䵚 र ल㉋गᝀ। 7) यह कᔿ ्䵚थम प्䵌र भⵂ#कᔿम खस㡇र न⡇. 4402/ चर मह भⵂत⑀र 0+ स㡇 0ध म'्䴹 रर पस㡇 कᔿत⑀य प्䵌र न⡇म कᔿ्䵅य कᔿल㉋ख कᔿन⡇ष㝍पकᔿत⑀ रयगᝀ, ቈ䢌ज᱉स㡇 ቈ䢌ल㉋ए उन⡍ह ई प4थ स㡇 ्䵚कᔿत⑀फ⭇ल㉋ ्䵚 न⡇हA हगᝀ। 8) यह कᔿ खस㡇र न⡇. 4402/ 0+ स㡇 0ध म'्䴹 रन⡇ ए 0+ ऋण अयगᝀ स㡇म⹍प#ण कᔿयत⑍ ए भⵂर ्䵚थम प्䵌र हगᝀ। 9) यह कᔿ ्䵚थम प्䵌र थन⡇ ज᱉ज᱉गᝀर म ज᱉ अपरध ्䵅. 157/2023 अत⑀गᝀत⑀ धर 420, 1200 ए 34 भⵂ.. कᔿधन⡇ स㡇म रन⡇ ቈ䢌ल㉋ए आश㙍य आन⡇ यकᔿहयM स㡇्䵌म न⡍ययल㉋य म ्䵚स㡍त⑀'त⑀ र उ्䴹 अपरध रज᱉न⡇म आधर पर स㡇म र गᝀ। 10) यह कᔿ अ0 न⡇M प्䵌M मध❍य ई कᔿ )ष न⡇हA ह5 त⑀थ भⵂकᔿष㝍य म ए-#स㡇र कᔿरぁ्䵍 ई कᔿ)यत⑀ य यह न⡇हA रगᝀ।” 6 4. The complainant/respondent No.2 had filed an application before learned trial Court on 09-05-2025 for permission to compound the offence, as the parties have entered into compromise, but the said application filed by the complainant has been rejected by the learned trial Court on 09-05-2025, which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, since the parties have entered into compromise and there is no chance of ultimate conviction, the alleged offence of Section 420 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, but without assigning any reason, the application filed by the complainant has been rejected. Since, the complainant does not want to prosecute his complaint further and they have entered into compromise, the proceeding of the criminal case pending against the petitioners/ accused persons is liable to be quashed on that grounds alone that, parties have entered into compromise. 6. During the pendency of the present petition, an application for grant of permission to compound the offence has been filed by the parties supported by the affidavit of the complainant- Govind Sahu and petitioner No. 1- Smt. Parvati Banjare. Vide order dated 10-09-2025, the parties were directed to record their statements before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, and in persons thereof, their statements have been recorded on 10-09-2025 and they reiterated the contents of the compromise and admitted that the 7 parties have settled their dispute and entered into compromise and the complainant does not want to prosecute his complaint further. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of “B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another” (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as under: “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Court on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 8. Further, in the matter of “Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab” (2014) 6, SCC 466, Hon’ble Supreme court has held that:- “29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 8 9. Further, in the matter of “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another” (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Supreme court has held:- “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 like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family 9 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 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.” 10. Taking into consideration the fact that, the complainant has already settled the dispute and verified the compromise deed arrived at between the parties on 06-05-2025, and also in view of the above cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that, object of law is not only to punish the culprit, but to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the CRPC, quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1628 of 2023, arising out of the FIR of Crime No. 157 of 2023 registered at the Police Station 10 Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, so far as it is concerned against the petitioners herein, namely; Smt. Parvati Banjare and Shri Dhaniram Banjare only. 11. Instant CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The Criminal Case No. 1628 of 2023, arising out of the FIR of Crime No. 157 of 2023, registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa is quashed with respect to the present petitioners- Smt. Parvati Banjare and Shri Dhaniram Banjare. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved