1 2025:CGHC:61740-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3793 of 2025 Mayank Sen S/o Mr. Kamalnarayan Sen Aged About 19 Years R/o H.No. 51, Sector 2, Gali No. 2, Professor Colony, P.S. Purani Basti, Dist. Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Ganj (Cyber Range), District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Harsha Ben W/o Deepak Bhai Nadiyapra Aged About 46 Years R/o Gali No. 1/18 Corner, Near Ramapeer Chokadi, 150 Ring Road, Rajkot, Dist. Rajkot Gujrat 4 - Solanki Deepak S/o Solanki Natubhai Raimalbhai Aged About 34 Years (In Some Place Deepak Solanki Mentioned) Natubhai, R/o 15 Gadhavi Vaas, Bawla, Ahemdabad, Dist. Ahemdabad Gujrat ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Ratan Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, earned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Ratan Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.19 15:45:32 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner 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 FIR no. 79/2025 (Annexure P-1) and order of cognizance dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P- 2) and order of framing charges dated 05.08.2025 along with memo of charges (Annexure P-3 Colly) and order dated 24.11.2025 for the offences under section 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5), 111 and in effect quash the entire criminal case pending before the 1" Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur bearing Sessions case number 222/2025 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. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 transferred certain amounts through online mode and, on that basis, lodged a complaint on the cyber crime web portal alleging misuse of the bank account of the present petitioner. Acting solely on the said complaint, the Cyber Range included the petitioner’s bank account under the category of accused along with other persons, pursuant to which respondent No.2 registered FIR No.79/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) and 111 of 3 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). It is submitted that after completion of investigation, respondent No.2 filed a charge-sheet before the learned JMFC, Raipur, who thereafter committed the case to the Sessions Court. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, where cognizance was taken by order dated 10.07.2025 and Sessions Case No.222/2025 was registered. Thereafter, by order dated 05.08.2025, charges were framed against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions. 4. Mr. Ali submits that although the FIR names several accused persons, the alleged victims qua the present petitioner are only respondent Nos.3 and 4, who alone had transferred the amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and, therefore, instead of entering into any private compromise initially, the statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were recorded before the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, however, the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have amicably settled their dispute, and the complainants are no longer willing to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In view of the said compromise, an application under Sections 359(1) and 359(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) was filed before the learned trial Court. The trial Court recorded the statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in support of the compromise; however, the said application was rejected by order dated 24.11.2025, even though offences under Sections 317(2) 4 and 317(5) of the BNS are compoundable in nature. It is submitted that the refusal of the learned trial Court to compound even the compoundable offences is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the FIR, charge- sheet, order taking cognizance, order framing charges, and the entire criminal proceedings. 5. Mr. Ali further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that even non-compoundable offences can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers where the dispute is essentially private in nature and the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without coercion or inducement, and that such power can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, including after framing of charges. In the present case, the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and, therefore, is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that even on merits, the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The entire prosecution case against the petitioner rests solely on his memorandum statement, without any independent corroborative material. Notably, the alleged victims themselves are cited as witnesses in the charge- sheet, and no incriminating material, apart from the memorandum, has been brought on record. Such material may be sufficient for 5 registration of an FIR, but it is wholly inadequate for filing a charge-sheet and framing of charges, rendering the continuation of the proceedings an abuse of process of law. He further submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case would serve no useful purpose and would amount to harassment of the petitioner, particularly when the parties have restored cordial and harmonious relations and have voluntarily resolved their dispute. The inherent powers of this Court are meant to prevent such misuse of the criminal process and to secure the ends of justice, which are higher than the mere technical application of law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the offences alleged are serious in nature and involve cyber fraud, having wider societal impact. It is contended that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted after due investigation and the trial court has already taken cognizance and framed charges. The compromise entered into between the petitioner and the complainants cannot wipe out the criminality, particularly when some of the offences are non-compoundable. It is further submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the application for compounding after recording evidence, and no illegality or perversity is made out warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petition, therefore, deserves dismissal. 6 7. Mr. Ratan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4/complainants, submits that the dispute between the complainants and the petitioner has been amicably settled without any pressure or coercion. The complainants have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is submitted that the matter is purely private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 9. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that upon receipt of information from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Portal (1930), relating to 143 acknowledged cyber-fraud transactions involving 41 bank accounts of Karnataka Bank, Branch Raipur, for the period from 01.01.2024 to 11.01.2025, Crime No.79/2025 was registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111 of the BNS at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur. During investigation, notices were issued under the relevant provisions of the BNSS to the concerned bank and account holders, KYC details and statements were obtained, and the accused persons admitted to having sold their bank accounts and kits for illegal consideration, facilitating receipt of proceeds of cyber fraud. Separate memoranda were recorded, documents were seized, and arrests 7 were effected following due procedure. Upon finding sufficient material indicating active facilitation and habitual concealment of proceeds of cyber fraud, the charge-sheet was filed against the arrested accused, with leave granted under Section 193(9) BNSS to continue investigation against other accomplices. 10. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is undoubtedly wide, but it is equally well-settled that such inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The power is not intended to stifle a legitimate prosecution or to short-circuit a criminal trial at its threshold, particularly when the allegations disclose commission of serious offences. 11. From the material on record, it clearly emerges that the present case is not confined to a solitary or isolated transaction between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. The charge-sheet reflects involvement of as many as 41 bank accounts and 143 acknowledged cyber-fraud transactions over a prolonged period. The allegations indicate a systematic and organised modus operandi involving opening and selling of bank accounts and kits for facilitating receipt and laundering of proceeds of cyber crime. Such offences, by their very nature, have far-reaching societal impact and undermine public confidence in digital banking and financial systems. Therefore, the dispute cannot be characterised 8 as purely personal or private in nature so as to warrant quashment on the basis of compromise. 12. The contention that the prosecution case against the petitioner rests solely on memorandum statements cannot be accepted at this stage. The charge-sheet reveals that notices were issued to the concerned bank, KYC details and transaction records were obtained, statements of account holders were recorded, and material was collected pointing towards active facilitation in the commission of cyber offences. At the stage of considering a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the probative value of the evidence or to conduct a mini-trial. The existence of prima facie material is sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution. 13. As regards the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognised the power of the High Court to quash even non- compoundable offences in appropriate cases. However, the same judgments unequivocally caution that such power should not be exercised in cases involving serious economic offences, offences having a deleterious effect on society, or offences which are not overwhelmingly private in character. Cyber fraud and financial crimes fall squarely within this prohibited category. The mere willingness of the complainants to withdraw from the prosecution cannot override the larger public interest involved in such cases. 9 14. The learned trial Court, after recording the statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4, has declined to permit compounding. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the proceedings, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the said order dated 24.11.2025. The argument that the trial Court was bound to compound the offences under Sections 317(2) and 317(5) of the BNS overlooks the composite nature of the prosecution and the inter-connected allegations forming part of a larger cyber crime network. 15. Permitting quashment of the entire criminal proceedings at this stage, merely on the basis of a bilateral settlement with two complainants, would amount to giving a quietus to a prosecution involving multiple victims, multiple accused, and allegations of organised cyber fraud. Such an approach would defeat the administration of criminal justice and would not advance the cause of justice. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner does not amount to abuse of the process of law and, on the contrary, interference at this stage would be contrary to the interests of justice. The present petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet