1 2026:CGHC:8-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3777 of 2025 K.K. Agrawal S/o Shri Tek Chand Agrawal Aged About 68 Years R/o Near Nepal Lodge Behind Of Old Bus Stand P.S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Pankaj Aggarwal S/o Late Laxmichand Aggarwal Aged About 42 Years R/o Narayani Complex, Udit Nagar Maridian Tower 504, Rourkela, Odisha ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Advocate Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.03 11:55:40 +0530 2 petitioners with the following prayers :- “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned first information report (F.LR.) No. 302/2023 registered at Police Station Ambikapur district- Surguja (C.G.) dated 16/05/2023 for offences under section 420, 120B, 506 Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire Chargesheet 254/2025 filed on 16.06.2025 for offences under section 420, 120b, 506 Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated 17/06/2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) iv. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the criminal case no. 4754/2025, (state of C.G. Vs Rahul Aggarwal and others pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely Pankaj Agrawal lodged written complaint at the Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja on 16.05.2023 against six persons namely Rahul Goyal, K.K. Agrawal, Rahul Agrawal, Aman Agrawal, Sujeet Jaiswal and Pappu Jaiswal. The complainant alleged in the FIR that he is a Director of Ganesh Rolling Mills, Orissa and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron rods. It is further alleged that Rahul Goyal and K.K. Agrawal used to 3 supply coal from Jai Hanuman Coal Depot and Maruti Minerals, to the factories situated at Orissa. It is further stated that two years back, an offer was made to the complainant to invest the amount in business and for partnership. The complainant Pankaj Aggarwal, as per the first information report (F.I.R.), given total amount of Rs. 21,16,91,271/- to the accused persons for coal business. It is further alleged in the FIR that the iron rods were also supplied to them in advance of total 21,68,13,326/- in cash but only for an amount of 16,05,39,500/-, the iron rods were supplied and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,62,73,826/- was not returned, and the balance comes to Rs. 26,79,65,097/- which the complainant asked to return from the co-accused which was not returned and when the complainant asked about the account balance, then the accused stated that total dividend of Rs. 38,64,13,658/- is left including the interests of 2%. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against accused persons including the present petitioner on 16.06.2025 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 17.06.2025. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present petitioner even if the entire FIR, charge- sheet and accompanying material are accepted on their face 4 value, without any rebuttal, for the sake of argument. A bare perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet would demonstrate that there is not a single piece of direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions or the alleged offence. The allegations essentially disclose a civil dispute arising out of alleged business transactions, which has been given the colour of a criminal case with mala fide intent. The petitioner has not received a single penny in his account, nor is there any material to show inducement, deception or dishonest intention attributable to him, which is a sine qua non for an offence under Section 415 IPC. The FIR itself shows that the entire business dealings, if any, were between the complainant and co-accused Rahul Goyal alone, and the petitioner has been implicated merely on account of being the father of the said co-accused. The allegations regarding payment of more than Rs. 38 crores in cash, that too post-demonetisation and during the COVID period, are inherently improbable, absurd and unsupported by any documentary evidence, source of funds, bank trail, independent witnesses, call detail records or chats. The charge-sheet does not reflect any document, circumstance or statement establishing the petitioner’s involvement in coal or iron rod business or any conspiracy whatsoever. On the contrary, the material on record shows that the petitioner is a senior citizen, suffering from ailments, not actively involved in any business, and that the firm in which his name appears as a paper owner was, for all practical purposes, 5 operated and managed solely by his son under an authority letter/power of attorney. Thus, even prima facie, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are conspicuously absent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the complainant/victim, namely Pankaj Agarwal, himself has categorically alleged that the dispute arose out of business dealings, wherein it was claimed that certain amounts were not paid to him by accused Rahul Agarwal and Aman Agarwal. On the basis of the said allegations, multiple complaints were filed, giving rise to the present criminal proceedings against several accused persons. During the pendency of the proceedings, the said accused Rahul Agarwal paid an amount of Rs.48,27,697/- on 07.09.2023 from the account of his firm, Jai Bhavani Minerals, Obra, and accused Aman Agarwal paid an amount of Rs.73,65,049/- on 26.12.2023 from the account of his firm, R.K. Trading, Shaktinagar, U.P., towards the alleged outstanding dues. Admittedly, thereafter no amount remained outstanding between the complainant and the said accused persons. In these circumstances, the complainant voluntarily entered into a settlement with accused Rahul Agarwal and Aman Agarwal on 27.06.2025 before a Notary at Ambikapur, without any fear, pressure or undue influence. Pursuant thereto, the said accused filed CRMP No. 2415 of 2025 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2025, was pleased to direct the trial Court to consider and resolve the settlement in accordance with law. 6 Despite the above admitted settlement and full recovery of the alleged dues, the prosecution has opposed the compromise on the ground that offences under Sections 420, 120B and 506 IPC are made out and that Section 120B IPC is non-compoundable. It is submitted that the allegations, even as per the prosecution case, essentially pertain to commercial transactions and alleged non-payment of business dues, which are predominantly civil in nature. The subsequent addition of Sections 120B and 506 IPC is based merely on bald statements, without any independent or cogent material. The rejection of the compromise application solely on the ground that Section 120B IPC is non-compoundable overlooks the settled position of law that this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences when the dispute is overwhelmingly civil, the parties have settled their differences, and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The observation that acceptance of a partial compromise would prejudice other accused is misconceived, particularly when the complainant himself has settled his monetary claims and no subsisting grievance survives. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings, despite admitted settlement and absence of any surviving civil or criminal liability, is wholly unjustified and liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that upon a 7 careful scrutiny of the case diary, FIR and the charge-sheet filed after due investigation, it is evident that a prima facie case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of the IPC is clearly made out against the accused persons. The allegations are not confined to a mere civil dispute of recovery of money, but disclose a well-planned criminal conspiracy wherein the accused persons, acting in connivance with each other, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with huge quantities of goods and money by making false assurances of payment and profit, and thereafter misappropriated the same. The investigation has revealed that the accused procured iron rods on credit on the basis of fraudulent orders, sold the same to third parties at lower rates, accepted cash and intentionally defaulted in payment, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. Statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC support the prosecution case and justify the addition of Sections 120-B and 506 IPC, which clearly demonstrate the element of conspiracy and criminal intimidation. 8. It is further submitted that merely because certain accused persons have repaid part of the amount and entered into a compromise with the complainant, the criminal liability arising out of the offence does not get extinguished, particularly when the offence under Section 120-B IPC is non-compoundable and involves a concerted criminal design affecting the administration 8 of justice. Acceptance of a partial compromise with only some of the accused would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and the rights of the remaining accused, and would permit the complainant to control the course of criminal proceedings for personal gain. The order of this Court dated 04.08.2025 only directs the trial court to consider the compromise in accordance with law and does not mandate automatic quashment or closure of proceedings. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of prima facie material, and the non-compoundable nature of the offence, the State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the application. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, case diary and charge-sheet, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of the IPC involving alleged embezzlement/fraud of a huge amount of Rs.38,64,13,658/-. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be brushed aside as a mere civil dispute, as the prosecution case indicates a well-planned conspiracy, dishonest inducement and intentional default causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The subsequent payment of certain amounts by some of the accused and the alleged compromise with the 9 complainant does not wipe out the criminal liability, particularly when the offence under Section 120-B IPC is non-compoundable and the settlement is only partial in nature. This Court also finds that there is sufficient prima facie material on record to proceed against the present petitioner and that the continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of law. Interference at this stage would amount to suppressing a legitimate prosecution. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet