1 2026:CGHC:22154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1169 of 2026 1 - M/s Suryakant Chitlangya And Sons Through Its Proprietor Suryakant Chitlangya S/o Radheshyam Chitlangya Aged About 72 Years, R/o Lakholi Road, Near Shankar Bhawan, Gunj Line, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Sagar Chitlangya S/o Suryakant Chitlangya Aged About 43 Years R/o Lakholi Road, Near Shankar Bhawan, Gunj Line, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohit Somani S/o Murlidhar Somani Aged About 37 Years R/o Samta Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Jaidev Guha S/o Govind Guha Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. B-36, Near Cricket Ground, Housing Board Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.05.13 10:20:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No. 0419/2018 dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P- 1), registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the continuation of the said criminal proceedings is unjustified and contrary to the interest of justice, and therefore prays that this Court be quashed the aforesaid FIR in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 4, Jaydev Guha, proprietor of M/s Beena Engineering, had placed an order for supply of approximately 85 tons of TMT bars through petitioner No. 3, Mohit Somani, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 23,70,000/- was transferred and certain cheques were also handed over, however, due to alleged non-supply of materials the FIR in question bearing No. 0419/2018 dated 16.10.2018 came to be registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, under Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. 3 4. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature and has now been amicably resolved, as the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have entered into a registered compromise deed (Annexure P-2), whereby all claims and grievances stand settled, and no dispute survives between the parties. It is also submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed in the matter till date. It is therefore contended that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the continuation of the present criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and the FIR deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have placed on record a registered compromise deed said to have been executed between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 in respect of the dispute arising out of the commercial transaction forming subject matter of FIR No. 0419/2018 dated 16.10.2018 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 6. Considering the fact that the matter is still under investigation and the compromise alleged to have been entered into between the 4 parties is required to be verified, coupled with the fact that respondent No. 4/complainant has not appeared before this Court, we deem it proper to direct that the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of one week from today along with a certified copy of this order and the original compromise deed (Annexure P-2). The Investigating Officer shall verify the genuineness, voluntariness and authenticity of the compromise entered into between the parties and shall thereafter submit a detailed police report before the competent Court within a period of three weeks thereafter. 7. While carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the Investigating Officer shall also take into consideration the nature of dispute between the parties, which appears to have arisen out of a commercial transaction relating to supply of TMT bars, and shall proceed further strictly in accordance with law. 8. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2) to the learned counsel for the petitioners after obtaining photocopy of the same for being retained on record. 9. With the aforementioned observations/directions, instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu