1 2026:CGHC:22742-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1371 of 2026 1 - Pritam Mahant S/o Late Subechand Mahant Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Jakela, P.S. Jutmil, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Kamesh Sao S/o Kartikram Sao Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Ramnagar, Kodatarai, P.S. Jutmil, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Hemsagar Patel @ Dikesh S/o Khageshwar Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Jakela P.S. Pusaur, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Range Cyber Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Murli Patel @ Murari Lal Patel S/o Bodhram Patel Aged About 54 Years R/o R.T.S. Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Ms.Megha Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.14 19:07:06 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.05.2026 1. Heard Mr.Wasim Miyan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Ms.Megha Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528 BNSS the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- “i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. No. 11/2024, dated 25.11.2024, registered at Police Station Range Cyber Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) under section 318(4),3(5) of B.N.S. iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge-sheet No.9/2024, filed on 20.12.2024, for the offence under section 318(4), 308(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act filed before the learned C.J.M. Bilaspur (C.G.) iv. Case That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 whereby the learned C.J.M. Bilaspur (C.G.) has taken cognizance under section 318(4), 308(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act, on the impugned chargesheet and registered Criminal No. 18866/2024 against the petitioners. 3 v. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, whereby the application for compromise filed by the complainant and petitioners was partly allowed and petitioners acquitted from charges under section 318(4), 238,3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act and charges under section 308(2) of BNS has not been quashed on the ground that the offence under section 308(2) of BNS is not compoundable. vi. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 whereby the learned CJM has framed Charges against the petitioners and charge dated 18.09.2025 under section 318(4), 308(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act and may kindly be acquitted the petitioners from the charges under section 318(4), 308(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS and 66(D) of IT Act on the basis of compromise.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No.2/complainant lodged a report at Police Station Cyber Range, Bilaspur, stating that he had received a friend request on Facebook from a person using mobile number 77730-28557, which he accepted. Thereafter, the complainant started communicating with the said person through WhatsApp calls and chats, during which he shared details regarding his family problems. It is alleged that the said person informed the complainant that her family members had abandoned and harassed her and that they intended to lodge a police complaint against her. Taking advantage of the emotional situation of the complainant, the said person sent a QR code to him and induced 4 him to transfer money through online transactions. Subsequently, the complainant was invited to meet in person, and further conversations took place. Thereafter, the complainant allegedly started receiving calls from different mobile numbers from persons claiming to be friends or associates of the said woman, who threatened to implicate him in a false suicide case and to lodge a police complaint against him. It is further alleged that the accused persons sent handwritten notes, obscene photographs, and videos to the complainant and threatened to make the same viral on social media. Under fear and pressure, the complainant transferred various amounts through online transactions and also paid cash on different dates. 4. According to the complainant, he was cheated of an amount of Rs. 7,29,199/- through online transactions and Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash, totaling Rs. 20,29,199/-. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No.11/2024 was registered at Cyber Range, Bilaspur for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against them under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 5 5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter, the complainant and the petitioners jointly filed an application for compromise under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur on 20.12.2024. Respondent No.2/complainant appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and filed an affidavit categorically stating that he did not wish to prosecute the petitioners in the criminal case. The said compromise application was partly allowed, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charges under Sections 318(4), 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. However, the offence under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was not quashed on the ground that the same is non-compoundable in nature. Thereafter, upon change of the Presiding Officer, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.09.2025, framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties admitted that compromise has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and they have settled their dispute amicably outside of the Court and as such, respondent No.2 does not want to continue with the criminal case and has compromised the case 6 without any fear, undue influence or any pressure. Therefore, the criminal case pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur be quashed. 7. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : “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 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 7 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.” 8. The Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2 has held as under : “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 8 criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another3 has 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 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) 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. Considering the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes amicably outside of the Court and respondent No.2 does not want to continue with criminal case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.18866/2024. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.18866/2024 arising out of the FIR in Crime No.11/2024 dated 25.11.2024 registered at Police Station Range Cyber, 3 (2013) 4 SCC 58 9 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur and consequent proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu