1 2026:CGHC:27386-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1634 of 2026 1 - Devesh Patel S/o Shridhar Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lendhra Road Baramkela, District Sarngarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Singh Sidar S/o Late Lallan Singh Sidar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sangitrai, P.S. Jutmil, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Sidhdharth Chandra Anant S/o Late Sukhlal Anant Aged About 38 Years Village Mithumuda, P.S. Jutmil, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajababu Maitri S/o Late Paleshwar Singh Maitri Aged About 35 Years R/o Chantipali, Thana Baramkela, District Sarangarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Ritesh Bhoy S/o Late Bhogi Lal Bhoy Aged About 32 Years Village Rajiv Nagar Sariya, District Sarangarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Surendra Nayak S/o Lillambar Nayak Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jhabar, P.S. And Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Lillambar Nayak S/o Late Thakurram Nayak Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Jhabar P.S. And Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate. For State : Shri Sumeet Singh, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents 2&3 : Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.08 19:11:08 +0530 2 Order on Board 03.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petitions seeking following reliefs: “1. Allow the petition and set-aside the order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure A/1) whereby the application under 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/section 359(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 has been rejected by Second Additional Judge of Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh passed in Sessions Trial No. 37/2025 and further consequent criminal proceedings in relating to Session Trial No. 37/2025 pending before Second Additional Judge of Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. 2. and kindly be pleased to quash the FIR having Crime No. 397/2022 registered under section 452, 307/34, 201, 147 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh; 3. and quash the entire charge sheet bearing arising out of Crime No. 397/2022, filed on 01.08.2025 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for the offence under section 452, 307/34, 201, 147 Indian Penal Code; 4. and further quash the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 8.08.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 2229/2025, arising out of Crime No. 397/2022, registered at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Annexure A/2), in the interest of justice.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.12.2022 when the complainant- Surendra Nayak was in his Computer Shop along with his father Lilambar Nayak and two other workers, at about 1:00 PM, the petitioners herein stated to have entered into his shop and the petitioner Siddharth Anant assaulted his father with an iron rod and caused serious injury. He immediately called Dial-112 and shifted his injured father to Bilaigarh Hospital for treatment. Based on said complaint, an FIR was registered on the same day i.e. 15.12.2022 for the offence under Sections 452,307/34,201 and 147 IPC in Crime No.397 of 2022. 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR is false and baseless. FIR was lodged only to implicate them in a false case. As per MLC report, the injuries received by the father of complainant was simple in nature. Rather, the complainant, his injured father, Sevan Kumar and one Khemsagar used filthy language against the brother of petitioner No.2 namely Ajambar Singh Sidar who is the complainant in another case (CrMP No.3014 of 2025) for which written complaint was lodged by him on 16.12.2022 and FIR was also registered on 14.06.2025 under Sections 294,186,353,323,341,427,34 IPC in Crime No.69 of 2025 and charge sheet has been filed on 09.08.2025 under Sections 294,186,353,323,341,427,34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v)(a) and 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988. 4 The counsel for the petitioners have stated that they have settled their dispute amicably. They would further submit that they have already filed an application under Section 320(2) CrPC/359(2) of BNSS 2023 for compounding the offence on 11.05.2026 which was dismissed by the trial court holding that the alleged offences are not compoundable and therefore permission for compounding the offence cannot be granted. The petitioners have referred the order sheet dated 11.05.2026 annexed at Page Nos.50&51 of petition. They also referred page No.98 of the petition which is a joint application filed before the trial court. 5 The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute have not been disputed by the counsel for the private respondents. They would also 4 submit that a deed of compromise have also been executed between the parties on 28.04.2026 vide Annexure A/4. 6 In view of the categorical statement made by the complainant as well as the accused/petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466]. 7 The Supreme Court in Gian Singh (Supra) has observed in para 49, 52, 53 and 57 as under: “49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a 5 court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 57. 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 5 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” 8 Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, 6 there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 9 In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons; keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 10 Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is allowed. The proceedings in Session Trial No.37/2025 pending before Second Additional Judge of Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh, arising out of Crime No.397 of 2022 registered at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, stands quashed and the petitioners, who are accused persons in that case, stand discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 452,307/34,201 and 147 IPC. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder