1 CGHC010319242026 2026:CGHC:36720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2162 of 2026 Mehul Agrawal S/o Satyanarayan Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Dabhara Road Kharsiya, Tehsil Kharsiya, Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Ramlal Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Dabhara Road Kharsiya, Tehsil Kharsiya, Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.19 10:22:26 +0530 2 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:- “It is therefore, prayed that the present petition may be allowed and may kindly be quashed the FIR bearing no. 354/2026 registered at Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) dated 14/07/2026 punishable U/S 296,351(3), 115(2), (1)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the entire criminal proceedings, if arising there from in respect to the petitioner on the basis of compromise between the parties, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who are closely related family members, arose out of a dispute concerning partition of family property. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the dispute, the parties amicably resolved their differences outside the Court and, pursuant thereto, a partition agreement was executed between them on 19.07.2026. A copy of the said agreement has been placed on record as Annexure P/3. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR and, therefore, continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concurs with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and 3 submits that the dispute has indeed been amicably settled between the parties. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are dealt with in accordance with law in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In view of the settlement stated to have been arrived at between the parties, the parties are directed to place the original/appropriate copy of the agreement dated 19.07.2026 before the Investigating Officer, who shall verify the genuineness of the said settlement and thereafter submit his report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Investigating Officer shall undertake the aforesaid exercise strictly in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR or on the merits of the case. The present order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. 8. The certified copy of all the annexures filed along with the petition shall be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining photocopies thereof for being retained on the record. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu