2026:CGHC:8778-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1457 of 2024 1 - Ramavtar Saraf S/o Late Gulraj Saraf Aged About 81 Years 2 - Pushpa Saraf W/o Ramavtat Saraf Aged About 79 Years Both are R/o C-06 II Floor Ashoka Tower Beside Bti Ground Shankar Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station SHO P.S. Civil/lines Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Anjay Shukla S/o Late Vijay Shankar Shukla Aged About 61 Years Pro. A.S. Roadways R/o Civil Lines Near C.M. House Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Priyank Rathi, GA For Respondent-2 : Ms Priya Mishra, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.02.2026 Heard Shri Alok Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State and Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-2. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.23 17:09:08 +0530 Crmp 1457 of 2024 2 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR No. 0273/2024 registered at P.S. Civil Lines Raipur C.G. (Annexure-P/1) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467 of IPC in the interest of justice.” 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Complainant-Anjay Shukla, Proprietor of AS Roadways of Raipur filed a written complaint before the Police Station-Civil Lines, Raipur on the basis of which FIR was registered on 27.04.2024 against the present petitioners. It was alleged in the said FIR that the present petitioners, in connivance with the co- accused-Nitish Saraf, who is their grandson, have committed embezzlement and cheating to the tune of Rs.2.5 crores by means of fraud and forgery. Subsequently, respondent-2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC, and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that during pendency of the criminal case, respondent-2 Anjay Shukla along with his family members, and the co-accused Nitish Saraf along with his family members, wherein petitioners are included, entered into mutual Crmp 1457 of 2024 3 compromise deed dated 26.11.2024, and both the parties agreed to one time settlement. 4. In terms of the said compromise deed, parties have settled the dispute between them in the following terms: (a) The first party (respondent-2 and family members) and the second party (Petitioners and their family members) and their entire families have good family relations for many years. (b) The compromise deed outlines the transfer of a 3BHK flat in Ashoka Tower, Shankar Nagar, Raipur to the respondent-2 in settlement of debt received by Nitish Saraf, Grandson of the present petitioners to the tune of approximately Rs.19,50,000/- from the family members of respondent-2, seeing the need for money, which he could not repay, and this compromise deed has been done between the parties. (c) Compromise also mentions that the said flat is currently mortgaged with a bank, and the respondent-2 will pay the remaining loan amount of about 10,50,000/- to make the said property debt-free. Respondent-2 will also to pay the difference amount, if any, to make the above property Crmp 1457 of 2024 4 debt-free, and the petitioners will return the same within five days. (d) Compromise also includes the terms to withdraw an FIR- 2738 of 2024, registered by the respondent-2 against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC at the Civil Lines, Police Station, Raipur, and all proceedings of the said FIR will be terminated, and return the specific cheques drawn on ICICI bank to the petitioners. (e) Lastly, it confirms that once the property is registered, no further financial claims remain between the parties regarding this matter. (f) It also stipulates legal action can be taken if either party violates the terms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute under the terms of compromise deed, arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR No.0273/2024 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of lthe IPC be quashed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent-2 do not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Crmp 1457 of 2024 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles in para No.61 and 62 that : “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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 Crmp 1457 of 2024 6 offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand 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. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the Bench(es) concerned.” 9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another2 has 2 (2013) 4 SCC 58 Crmp 1457 of 2024 7 examined scope of compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in offence of non-compoundable nature. 10. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that parties have entered into compromise and the terms of settlement have been reduced in writing in the settlement/compromise deed dated 26.11.2024. It is necessary to reiterate the terms of settlement which is as follows: // समझौता नाम// ्ቚथम प्ቌकार- 1 अंजय शुक्ला, उ्቞ 63 व्ቧ पिपता स्व. पिवजय शुक्ला 2 अंरुणा शुक्ला उ्቞ 61 व्ቧ पपिता- अंजय शुक्ला दो ना! पिनावस" पिसपिवला लाइना, स"एम बंगला' का' पस, रयपर (छ.ग.) 3 ए. एस. र डव'ज ्ቚ परईटर - अंजय शुक्ला पता- पिसपिवला लाइना, स"एम बंगला' का' पस, रयपर (छ.ग.) पि,ता"य प्ቌकार- 1 पिनापिताशु सरफ, उ्቞ 35 व्ቧ पिपता- ቦኍ" दो"पका कामर सरफ 2 सध्य सरफ उ्቞ 55 व्ቧ पपिता - दो"पका कामर सरफ 3 दो"पका कामर सरफ उ्቞ 60 व्ቧ पिपता - ቦኍ" रमअंवतार सरफ Crmp 1457 of 2024 8 ता"ना पिनावस"- फ्ला1ट नाबंर- ए- 6. पि,ता"य ताला, अंशु का टवर, शुकार नागर, रयपर (छ. ग.) उभय प्ቌकार! का' मध्य पिना्ቖपिलापि4ता िሮबंदोओं पर समझौता हो ना स्व"का8ता कारता' हो9 01. यहो किका, ्ቚथम प्ቌकार एव पि,ता"य प्ቌकार! एव प;र' परिरवर स' व्ቧ= प;व परिरवरिरका सबंध रहो' हो9। 02. यहो किका, पि,ቈኍ"य प्ቌ ताथ उनाका' परिरवर ,र सचापिलाता उरला औध पिगका ्ቌ'्ቔ पिस्थता िሮजका कार4ना ज किका ओम का'पिमकाला इडस्቏ኍ"ज का' नाम स' स्थपिपता हो1। 03. यहो किका, पि,ता"य प्ቌ का' ्ቅमका 01 पिनापिताशु सरफ का' ,र ्ቚथम प्ቌकारगणा स' रूपय' काH आवश्यकाता का दो'4ता' हुय' लागभग 1,19,50,0000/-रू. ( अं्ቌर" एका कार ड़ उቐኍ"स ला4 पचास होजर रुपय') ्ቚ्቎ किकाय' थ', किकान्ता उ्ሹ प1स' आज पिनापिताशु सरफ दो'ना' काH पिस्थपिता मQ नाहोR हो1, इसपिलाय' उ्ሹ समझौता' का पिनाष्पदोना पिना्ቖनासर किकाय ज रहो हो1। 04. यहो किका, ्ቚथम प्ቌकार एव पि,ता"य प्ቌकार का' मध्य मथर परिरवरिरका सबंध हो ना' काH पिस्थपिता मQ पि,ता"य प्ቌ एव उनाका' परिरजना! का का्ቖ मQ जनाकार ्ቚथम प्ቌकार इस सबंध मQ पिवचार कार इस बंता पर रज" हुय' हो9 किका पि,ता"य प्ቌकार का' मकाना फ्ला1ट ना. ए 6, पि,ता"य ताला मQ पिस्थता ता"ना बं". एचा. का'. ज अंशु का टवर, शुकार नागर, रयपर छ.ग. मQ पिस्थता हो1 का उ्ሹ ला" गई रपिशु का' प'ट' ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' नाम पर पज"यना कारQग', किकान्ता उ्ሹ पला1ट वतामना मQ बं9का मQ पिलाय' गय' ऋणा का' एवज मQ बंधका हो1, पिजस पर बंचाता रपिशु लागभग 10,50,000/- रू. दो'ना शु'्ቧ हो1, पिजसका भगताना ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' ,र किकाय जकार उस' ऋणा म्ሹ कारय जय'ग, बं9का का' ,र अंनापपिቈኍ ्ቚमणा प्ቔ एव उ्ሹ फ्ला1ट स' सबंपिधता दोस्ताव'ज वपस" का' पቐኋता पि,ता"य प्ቌ अंपिवलाबं उ्ሹ फ्ला1ट काH रपिजस्቏ኍ" ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' प्ቌ मQ कारQग', इसमQ किकास" ्ቚकार का हो"ला होवला नाहोR कारQग'। 05. यहो किका, ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' ्ቅमका 01 का' प्ቌकार अंजय शुक्ला का' ,र पि,ता"य प्ቌ का' प्ቌ ्ቅमका 01 पिनापिताशु सरफ का' दोदो ቦኍ" रमअंवतार ज" सरफ एव दोदो" ቦኍ"मता" पष्प सरफ का' पिवरु्ቍ पपिलास थना पिसपिवला लाईना मQ एफ. आई. आर. ्ቅ.-273 of 2024 धर 420, 467 भ.दो.पिव. का' ताहोताX एफ.आई.आर. दोज कारई हो1, उ्ሹ एफ. आई. आर. काH समस्ता कायवपिहोय! का सम्቎ कारवयQग' ताथ पिजताना' भ" चा'का पिजसका ्ቅमका 012547, 012548, 012549 बं9का आई. स".आई.स". आई. बं9का ज अंकिदोनाकिकाता व होस्ता्ቌरिरता थ" उस' Crmp 1457 of 2024 9 पि,ता"य प्ቌ का वपस कारयQग', पिजसकाH अंपिभस्व"का8पिता ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' ,र ना का'वला इस समझौतानाम मQ होस्ता्ቌर कार काH जता" हो1। 6. यहो किका, पि,ता"य प्ቌकार का' पिपता ,र ्ቚथम प्ቌकार का' नाम पर उ्ሹ फ्ला1ट का रपिजस्቏ኍ" कार दो'ना' का' उपरता उभयप्ቌकार! का' मध्यम स' मना पिलाय जय'ग, किका अंबं पि,ता"य प्ቌकार का' ,र ्ቚथम प्ቌकार एव उनाका' अंन्य समस्ता परिरवर का का ई भ" रकाम दो'ना शु'्ቧ नाहोR हो1। उभय प्ቌ का' बं"चा आज ताका का' समस्ता ला'नादो'ना का ब्यर अंनालाሿ቏का ्ቅमका 1 स' 5 ताका का' दोज हो1 ताथ सबंपिधता प्ቌ! ,र होस्ता्ቌरिरता हो1। यहो समझौतानाम इना अंनालाሿ቏का! का' सथ हो" सप;णा हो1। 7. यहो किका उ्ሹ फ्ला1ट का ऋणा म्ሹ कारना' हो'ता ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' ,र ऋणा का' एवज मQ जम लागभग 10,50,000/- रू. अंथव बं9का का' ,र ज बंकाय शु'्ቧ रपिशु दोቦኌशुता कार ला" जता" हो1, उ्ሹ रपिशु मQ ज अंतार आय'ग उसका भगताना ्ቚथम प्ቌ का' ,र किकाय जव'ग ताथ उसकाH वपस" पि,ता"य प्ቌ का' ,र 05 किकास्ता! मQ काH जय'ग" पिजसका' पिलाय' पि,ता"य प्ቌ का' ,र 05 चा'का ्ቅमका ्ቅमशु\ 01. 445070 किदोनाकिकाता 20.01.2025 रकाम 2,00,000/- 02. 445071 किदोनाकिकाता 05.02.2025 रकाम-2,00,000/- 03. 445072 किदोनाकिकाता 25.02.2025 रकाम 2,00,000/- 04. 446073 किदोनाकिकाता 10.03.2025 रकाम 2,00,000/- 5. 445074 किदोनाकिकाता 25.03.2025 रकाम 2,53,000/- बं9का स्ट'ट बं9का आफ इपिडय, आई.ई. उरला ኋ᭞चा, पिजला- रयपर छ.ग. का' मध्यम ्ቚदोना कारQग' तात्पቐኋताX प्ቌ ्ቅमका 01 एव 02 का' मध्य ्ቚथम प्ቌ का भपिवष्य मQ भ" का ई ला'ना- दो'ना शु'्ቧ नाहोR रहो'ग। यकिदो उ्ሹ समझौतानाम का' शुता= का उल्लाघना प्ቌ ्ቅ. 01 अंथव प्ቌ ्ቅ. 02 का' ,र किकाय जता हो1 ता उभय प्ቌ का यहो अंपिधकार हो ग किका इस सबंध मQ य' आपरपिधका य दो"वना" कायवहो" कार सकाता' हो1। 12. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably, and respondent No.2 acted upon the terms of settlement, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR No.0273/2024 registered against the petitioners at Police Station-Civil Lines, Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC be quashed. Crmp 1457 of 2024 10 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.0273/2024 registered against the petitioners at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC with respect to the petitioners is hereby quashed subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the compromise deed entered into between the parties on 26.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- SSd/-Sdd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma