1 / 8 2025:CGHC:58836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3236 of 2025 Vikas Patel S/o Shri Harishankar Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Regda, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Gagan Choudhary S/o Shri Kaushal Choudhari Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Bansiya, Police Station Jutemill, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Harishankar Patel S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Regda, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State /Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 26/07/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.12 11:36:49 +0530 2 / 8 Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh FTSC (POCSO Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. in Criminal Revision No.6/2025 whereby the learned Court has maintained the order dated 13/12/2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Raigarh, wherein the JMFC has rejected the application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent No.3/Complainant. 2. By way of the instant petition, the following prayer has been made by the petitioner:- It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh FTSC (POCSO Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Criminal Revision No.6/2025 and compound the offence and acquit the petitioner by allowing the prayer made in the application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice. 3. As per prosecution, respondent No. 3 has made a complaint before the Police Station respondent No. 2 have withdrawn the amount of Rs. present petitioner 37,64,436/ has been withdrawn with conspiracy manner by taking advantage of ATM Card. The police registered FIR against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for offence under section 420, 34 of IPC. The police investigated the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the documents, thereafter, filed the charge-sheet before the learned concerned court. 3 / 8 4. During the trial, the respondent No. 3/complainant filed an application under Section 320(2) and 320(1) of Cr.P.C. for acquittal the petitioner on the basis of compromise by mentioning that the complainant and accused/petitioner Vikas Patel are father and son and the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner, hence the petitioner may kindly be permitted to do compound, compromise and acquit the Vikas Patel from the present case. 5. On 13.12.2024 the learned trial court has passed the order and dismissed the application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the cheating has been informed of Rs. 37,64,436/- and the said offence is financial offence and alleged offence is grievous offence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, Raigarh against the order dated 13.12.2024. On 26.07.2025, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh FTSC (POCSO Act), District Raigarh has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the accused have been charges from offence under Section 420 & 34 of IPC and they have withdrawn the amount of Rs. 37,64,436/- of the complainant through ATM Card and phone-pay and if the application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. is allowed then the merit of the case may be affected. Hence this petition 6. It is contended that both the parties have settled the dispute and the statements of the parties have been recorded and they have contended that they do not want to further continue with the criminal case as they have entered into the compromise, therefore, the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed. 4 / 8 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “61. 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 5 / 8 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 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. 8. Further, in case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & ors. V. State of Gujarat & ors. {(2017) 9 SCC 641} their Lordship again reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions : “15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : 6 / 8 (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the 7 / 8 offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or 8 / 8 economic system will weigh in the balance.” 9. Considering the nature of the complaint made, it appears that the complaint is private in nature and was revolving in between the complainant and the petitioners. The complainant has stated that he do not want to continue the prosecution, therefore, continuation of the prosecution may be futile. 10. Taking into the nature of the complaint in between the parties and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order dated 26/07/2025 (Annexure P/1), wherein the application for compounding of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC was dismissed is modified to the extent that the offence under the aforesaid sections stands quashed in view of the compromise made in between the parties. In a result, since the accused have already been discharged under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC consequently, the proceedings of the criminal case No.898/2023 pending before the JMFC, Raigarh stands quashed only with respect to the petitioner only. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 11. Accordingly, the CRMP stands allowed qua the petitioner. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu