1 CGHC010276402026 2026:CGHC:30552-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1870 of 2026 Mitesh Chandra Bhattacharya (Minor) Alias Mithesh Bhattacharya S/o Shri Rajesh Chandra Bhattacharya Aged About 17 Years Through His Father Natural Guardian Rajesh Chandra Bhattacharya, R/o House No. 716, Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station In-Charge, Police Station City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 2. Ashutosh Singh Alias Ashutosh Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh R/o Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 3. Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri S. N. Singh R/o Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 4. Divyadeep Singh Thakur S/o Ajay Singh Thakur R/o Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.20 17:51:27 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate Genera, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR No. 0705 dated 25.12.2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Annexure P/1). Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition 3 has been preferred by the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, who was aged about 16 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged incident, seeking quashment of FIR No.0705 dated 25.12.2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR arose out of a sudden altercation between the petitioner's family and the complainant, who are immediate next-door neighbours. According to the learned counsel, the incident occurred on account of a misunderstanding and a spontaneous quarrel without any premeditation or criminal intent. It is further submitted that a counter FIR bearing No.0706 was also registered at the instance of the petitioner's elder brother in respect of the very same incident. He further contended that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency itself found that no offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was made out, as neither any firearm was recovered nor any material substantiating its use was collected. Consequently, the offences under the Arms Act were dropped and the charge-sheet came to be filed only for the offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with the intervention of respectable members of the locality, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and have restored cordial relations. 4 The parties had entered into the compromise prior to the filing of the charge-sheet and the said compromise was also arrived at before the Superintendent of Police concerned. In support thereof, a joint application along with separate affidavits duly executed by the parties has been placed on record. It is also submitted that an earlier petition being CRMP No.691/2026 was withdrawn with liberty to file separate petitions in respect of each FIR, subject to deposit of costs, which condition has already been complied with. 6. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely private in nature arising out of a neighbourhood quarrel and, in view of the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It is contended that the Petitioner is a young student having no criminal antecedents and continuation of the proceedings would seriously prejudice his education, rehabilitation and future prospects. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. From the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has sought quashment of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings primarily on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. It has been submitted that the compromise was arrived at prior to the filing of the charge-sheet 5 and the same was also effected before the Superintendent of Police concerned. A joint application along with separate affidavits of the parties has also been placed on record in support of the said settlement. 9. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the offences. Once the criminal proceedings have reached such a stage, the compromise relied upon by the petitioner is required to be placed before the competent Court, which alone is competent to consider and verify the genuineness and voluntariness of such compromise in accordance with law. Unless such exercise is undertaken by the jurisdictional Court, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement claimed by the parties. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 11. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to place the compromise before the competent Court, which shall consider and verify the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case 6 and that the competent Court shall consider the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observation made herein. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan