1 CGHC010315642026 2026:CGHC:37022-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 482 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Bansal S/o- Sagarmal Bansal, Aged About 40 Years R/o- House No. 1165, Gurushree Villa, Ward No. 04, Near Mahindra Showroom, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Nirmal Agrawal, Son Of Shri Suresh Chand Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years R/o- Block- B, Flat No. 102, First Floor, Gurushree Tower, Rambhata, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of C.G. Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District Magistrate, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station- Baradwar, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Ganesh Ram Chandra Son Of Bhola Ram Chandra Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village- Jetha, Tahsil And District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.21 10:53:07 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “i. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the FIR No. 191/2025 dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered against the Petitioners, for offence punishable under Section 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station-Baradwar, Revenue District, Sakti (C.G.), in the interest of justice. ii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State, on instructions, submits that the investigation has already been completed and the police report is likely to be filed today. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and have executed a compromise agreement, which has been filed on record as Annexure P-3. He further submits that, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present petition may be disposed of with an appropriate direction to the Investigating Officer to verify the compromise and take consequential steps in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 does not oppose the 3 aforesaid submission. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the compromise arrived at between them, the Investigating Officer is directed to verify the compromise entered into between the parties. Upon such verification, the Investigating Officer shall place the compromise and the verification report before the competent Court and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The competent Court shall consider the matter independently and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 9. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the annexure to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining attested true copies of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok