1 2025:CGHC:901-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 470 of 2024 1 - Mr. Suresh Agarawal S/o Lt Ram Kumar Agarwal Aged About 53 Years R/o Park Avenue, Q. No. 59/60, Dimrapur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrs. Sangeeta Agrawal W/o Suresh Agarwal Aged About 45 Years R/o Park Avenue, Q. No. 59/60, Dimrapur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Charadharnagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ratanlal Agrawal S/o Jagannath Agarwal Aged About 53 Years R/o Ko- traroad Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate. For State : Shri M.K. Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 07.01.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1 This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 409/2019 (FIR No.348 of 2015), pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The said offence is registered at Police Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.08 10:40:49 +0530 2 Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigrh, for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468 and 471/34 IPC. 2 Facts of the case are that, the petitioners are husband and wife. It is al- leged that, the respondent No.2/complainant entered into an oral agreement with the petitioner No.1 with respect to sale of land bearing Khasra No.194/3/d/73 stating it to be situated adjoining the main road and fraudulently obtained advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondent No.2/complainant. However, on enquiry being made from the revenue records, the subject land was not found to be adjoining the main road. The respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh where offence under Sections 420,467,468 and 471/34 IPC have been registered against the petitioners. 3 Initially, the petitioners have filed CRMP Nos. 852 and 986 of 2017 be- fore this court for quashing FIR registered against them. Both the peti- tions came up for hearing before the co-ordiante Bench of this court. The Co-ordinate Bench, after hearing the parties, dismissed both the petitioners however, they were granted liberty to take recourse of law, if aggrieved by the charge sheet submitted against them. 4 During pendency of present petition, the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2/complainant have jointly stated that they have settled their dispute amicably. They would further submit that in compli- ance of court’s order dated 22.11.2024, they have already filed an ap- plication for compromise before the concerned trial court. The trial court after verification of compromise application have recorded statement of disputing party on 30.12.2024. Therefore, they may be permitted to compromise in the matter. The complainant, in his statement, has also 3 mentioned that he does not wish to pursue the criminal case against the petitioners any further. 5 Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no objection in case if the matter is compounded as the parties have al- ready entered into compromise. 6 In view of the categorical statement made by the complainant as well as the accused/petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466]. 7 Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceed- ings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 8 In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons; keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder 4 Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 9 Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.409 of 2019 (FIR No.348 of 2015) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, stand quashed and the petitioners, who are accused persons in that case, stand discharged from the offence punishable under Sec- tions 420,467,468 and 471/34 IPC. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder