1 CGHC010276392026 2026:CGHC:31093-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1864 of 2026 1 - Rishikesh Chandra Bhattacharya Alias Rishikesh Bhattacharya S/o Shri Rajesh Chandra Bhattacharya Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 716, Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Rajesh Chandra Bhattacharya S/o Shri Bhabesh Chandra Bhattacharya Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 716, Ward No. 33, Near Railway Pump House, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioners 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. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.23 10:12:35 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, leanred Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “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 and also Final Report/Charge- sheet No.110/2026 dated 15.03.2026 filed pursuant thereto. The Petitioners further pray that the order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.3474/2026 arising out of the aforesaid charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings arising there from, may also kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case 3 may also kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the dispute arises out of a purely personal and private neighbourhood quarrel between immediate neighbours. It is submitted that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without any premeditation and both sides sustained only simple injuries. A counter FIR bearing No.0706 was also lodged by Petitioner No.1 in respect of the very same occurrence, which clearly establishes that the matter is a cross-case arising out of a sudden altercation. It is further submitted that during investigation the allegations under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were found to be wholly unsubstantiated and, accordingly, the said offences were dropped from the charge-sheet. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, after registration of the FIRs, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes with the intervention of respectable members of the locality and have restored cordial relations. It is contended that the compromise is voluntary, genuine and without any coercion, which is duly supported by compromise applications and affidavits executed by both sides expressing that they have no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed. It is also submitted that the Petitioners and the complainant belong to respectable families, Petitioner No.1 and the complainant are 4 students pursuing higher education and one of the accused is a juvenile; therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would unnecessarily jeopardize their education, reputation and future prospects despite there being no surviving grievance between the parties. 5. It is lastly submitted that though the prosecution now survives for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 296 is non- compoundable, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, is competent to quash the proceedings where the dispute is overwhelmingly private in nature and the compromise is genuine. Placing reliance upon the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, learned counsel submits that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law rather than serving the ends of justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR, charge- sheet, order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioners and submits that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by this Court in CRMP No.1870/2026 arising out of the identical cross-case between the same parties, wherein this Court 5 declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise and granted liberty to the Petitioners to place the compromise before the competent trial Court, which was directed to consider and verify the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the Petitioners ought to avail the liberty so granted and approach the competent Court instead of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the Petitioners seek quashment of the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings primarily on the basis of a compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences. 9. Significantly, in the identical cross-case arising out of the same incident between the very same parties, this Court, vide order dated 20.07.2026 passed in CRMP No.1870/2026, has already declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise and has granted liberty to the parties to place the 6 compromise before the competent Court for its consideration and verification in accordance with law. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case stands on an identical footing. Once the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, the compromise relied upon by the Petitioners is required to be placed before the competent Court, which alone is competent to examine its genuineness and voluntariness and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court in CRMP No.1870/2026 between the same parties arising out of the cross-case, this Court finds no reason to take a different view in the present matter. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Petitioners to place the compromise before the competent Court, which shall consider and verify the same independently, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any observation made herein. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu