1 2026:CGHC:5875-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 335 of 2026 Radhakrishn Yadav Alias Radheram S/o Gangaprasad Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dikali P.S. Irich District - Jhansi (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Khairagarh District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh 2. Kiran Kumar Sahu S/o Nammu Das Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Madauda, Chowki Jalabandha P.S. - Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.03 17:33:02 +0530 2 Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned FIR No. 275 of 2024 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai for offences under Section 420 of IPC & 64 (A) of IT Act, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire charge-sheet No. 08/2024 filed on 31.01.2025 for offences under Section 420, 419, 468, 471 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 66(D) of the Information Technology Action the interest of justice. iii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 44 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh vs. Radhakrishn alias Radheram pending for consideration before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) on the basis of compromise between the parties, in the interest of justice. 3 iv. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order cognizance dated 03.02.2025 and order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District K.C.G in Criminal Case No. 44 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh vs. Radhakrishn alias Radheram, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2/complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the petitioner had defrauded him by representing, through telephonic conversation, that if the complainant participated in a lottery system, he would receive substantial financial benefits. It is further alleged that acting upon such representation, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 1,96,700/- to the petitioner. However, when the complainant did not receive any financial benefits, he lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 275/2024 at Police Station Khairagarh, District K.C.G., for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet and added offences under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 amicably resolved their dispute and the complainant received the entire amount of Rs. 1,96,700/- from the petitioner. Consequently, a joint 4 application under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the parties seeking compounding of offences under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act on the basis of compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant appeared before the learned Trial Court and categorically admitted that he had received the entire amount from the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class compounded the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but declined to compound the offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 201 of the IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act on the ground that the said offences are non-compoundable in nature. Thereafter, considering the amicable settlement between the parties, the petitioner preferred an application seeking discharge on the basis of compromise. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District K.C.G., vide order dated 04.11.2025, rejected the said application on the ground that the remaining offences are non-compoundable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled all their disputes and differences outside the Court and the complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is submitted that in view of the compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties, continuation of Criminal Case No. 44/2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District K.C.G., would serve no 5 useful purpose. Hence, the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings has been filed in the interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant fairly concedes to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that Respondent No. 2 has no objection if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations and the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the entire amount has been refunded to the complainant, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. The dispute between the parties appears to be personal in nature and does not involve any overriding public interest. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, are applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the BNSS), may quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the undisputed fact of settlement between the parties, the present petition deserves to be and 6 is hereby allowed. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 275/2024 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District K.C.G., for offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 and 201 of the IPC and and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including Criminal Case No. 44/2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District K.C.G., is hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan