1 2026:CGHC:1075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 5 of 2026 1 - Shiv Kumar @ Jawahar Saraf S/o Motilal Aged About 55 Years R/o- Mahima Niwas, Behind Motilal Petrol Pump, P.S.- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Ram Avtar Agrawal S/o Jagmohan Das Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Vidya Nagar, Agrawal Bhawan, P.S- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 07.01. 202 6 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No.06/2022 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (in short, JMFC) in Criminal Case No.1313 of 2017 has been affirmed. 2. The subject matter in brief is that petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No.1313 of 2017 pending before JMFC, Bilaspur and facing prosecution for the offence under Sections 420/34 and 120-B IPC. The INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.14 10:36:22 +0530 2 allegation against the petitioner as well as other accused person in the present case is that in the year 2007 the petitioner contacted the complainant Ramavtar Agrawal and proposed to sale the land at village Pendridih in good location and assured that the land is free from all encumbrances and he would be liable if any defect is detected subsequently. The said land of Khasra Nos. 199/2,202/2 and 206/2, total area 4.60 Acre, which was purchased by the complainant Ramavtar Agrawal was recorded in the name of other accused person Shrirang Bobde in the year, 2007. In the year 2012 the complainant came to know that the purchased property is the Waqf property and notified in the official gazette. When the complainant contacted the accused persons, they also admitted that it is a Waqf property and assured for refund of sale consideration. An agreement was also executed on 21.10.2014 and in pursuance thereof a cheque of Rs.7,80,00,000/- dated 31.03.2015 was also given to the complainant. On 07.03.2015 the complainant served a notice to the accused to keep sufficient amount in their bank account so that the said cheque may not be dishonored, but the said notice was not replied by the accused persons, however, the said cheque was dishonored by the payee bank on 31.03.2015 which was also noticed to the accused persons and then the accused persons started threatening to the complainant and thereafter a complaint was made by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and present offence has been registered against the accused persons in which the charge sheet has been filed. 3 3. 3 3. During pendency of Criminal Case, the present petitioner entered into a compromise with the complainant and filed an application before the trial court under Section 320(2) of CrPC for compounding of the offence against the petitioner only. The trial court rejected the application filed under Section 320(2) of CrPC stating that the offence of Section 120-B IPC is not compoundable and the allegation in the present case are that both the accused persons conspired together and committed the offence of cheating. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the offence, permission to compound the offence cannot be granted in favour of the parties. The Criminal Revision also got dismissed by the revisional court which is under challenge in the preset petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence of Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the leave of court as provided under Table given in Section 320(2) of CrPC and the offence be compounded by the person cheated. In the present case the complainant who is the person cheated has entered into compromise with the accused Shiv Kumar @ Jawahar Saraf i.e. the petitioner and there is no impediment to permit them to compound the offence. Therefore, observation of the court that offence of Section 120-B is not compoundable, cannot be a ground to reject the application for compounding the offence. He would also submit that the offence of Section 120-B IPC is not a substantive offence. It merges with the main offence and once the main offence of cheating is compounded, the offence of conspiracy itself being compounded by the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner as 4 well as complainant may be permitted to compound the offence against the present petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and would submit that there is allegation of conspiracy and cheating with the complainant. The effect of compounding the offence with one accused with respect to cheating and conspiracy does affect the offence against other accused person and the genuineness of the compromise are also to be seen by the trial court while granting leave to the parties to compound their offence. Granting leave to compound the offence is not mandatory, but is discretionary and the trial court has exercised its discretion looking to the grievousness of the offence as well as allegation against the accused persons. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. In the present case there are two accused persons. They are Shrirang Bobde and Shiv Kumar @ Jawahar Saraf. The allegation against Shrirang Bobde is that the land was recorded in his name in the year 2007 when the complainant had purchased the said land. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is the middleman in transaction between Shrirang Bobde and Ramavtar Agrawal. The property belongs to Waqf property whereas the accused persons conspired for cheating and sold the property to the complainant and when the complainant came to know the fact that the said property was a Waqf property, he asked the accused persons to refund his amount 5 of sale consideration and by admitting the defect they gave a cheque of Rs.7,80,00,000/-which was dishonored by the payee bank. Feeling aggrieved by the act of the accused persons, the complainant lodged a report against both the accused persons. The allegation of conspiracy substantiate the offence of cheating that despite knowing the fact that property is the Waqf property, it was recorded in the name of Shrirang Bobde and both of them, by their act of conspiracy, sold it to the complainant. Entering into compromise with one accused out of the two does affect the allegation against other accused. While granting permission to compound the offence, the trial court is required to ascertain the genuineness and authenticity and also the other impact of said compounding of the offence. In the present case, the trial court has considered and held that compounding of offence against one accused cannot be permitted in view of allegation against both the accused persons as also looking to the gravity of offence and the offence of conspiracy is not compoundable. 8. In Bhagyan Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another, 2019(4)SCC 354, the Hon. Supreme Court has held in paragraph 10 as under : “10. …………... Merely because an offence is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC, still discretion can be exercised by the court having regard to nature of offence, as such it is rightly held in the impugned judgment that as the offence for which appellant was convicted and sentenced, it will have its own effect on the society at large. In view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order rejecting the application for compounding, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in not accepting the application filed for compounding the offence.” 9. From perusal of the order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in exercising jurisdiction by the courts below dismissing the application for 6 permission to compound the offence against the petitioner. The trial court has rightly exercised its discretion not to grant permission to compound the offence against one accused out of the two in the offence of conspiracy and cheating. 10. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder