1 2026:CGHC:5245-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1720 of 2024 1 - Manilal Patel S/o Shri Narayan Bhai Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Mudapar, Out Post Manikpur, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Patel S/o Manilal Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Mudapar, Out Post Manikpur, Police Station Kotwali, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Rakesh Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Ramnath Vishwakarma Aged About 44 Years R/o Durparoad, House No. 411 Ward, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. and Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.31 11:00:07 +0530 2 petitioners. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State and Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application and further be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 464/2023 registered at Police Station - Korba Kotwali, District - Korba (C.G.) and further investigation against the present applicants, if any, and they may kindly be discharged from the offences under Section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code.” 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein are invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR bearing crime No. 464/2023 filed against petitioners at Korba Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.) by which offence under sections 420, 34 of IPC is registered and the petitioners on the basis that an oral compromise has been taken place between the parties outside the Court and the petitioners have returned the amount in question to the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably resolved their differences and an oral compromise has been entered into, by which the petitioner have returned the amount in question ot the petitioner. Therefore, they are invoking the inherent 3 powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is prayed that the FIR be quashed in view of the voluntary compromise, particularly in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitting quashment of proceedings to secure the ends of justice when the dispute is personal and continuation of prosecution serves no purpose. Further, since a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, particularly when the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is fully empowered to quash even non-compoundable offences on the basis of a genuine compromise, as has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. It is further urged that cordial and harmonious relations have now been restored between the parties, and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. On a pointed query made by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for both sides regarding the existence of any written compromise, it has been fairly submitted that no formal written compromise has yet been executed between the parties and that the settlement arrived at is purely verbal and amicable in nature. In order to 4 ensure that the compromise is duly recorded in accordance with law, both parties shall reduce the terms of settlement into a proper written compromise. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the intent of the parties to amicably resolve their dispute, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to place on record a duly executed legal compromise before the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such compromise being filed, the Investigating Officer shall verify the voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise and submit his final report within a period of four weeks before the trial Court concerned. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet