1 CGHC010034102026 2026:CGHC:34459-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 293 of 2026 Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Rampal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Director, Rampal Steel, R/o Plot No. 271, Small Factory Area Bhandara Road, Near Harihar Mandir, Pritam Complex, Nagpur (M S) (Address And Name Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Azad Chowk Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Saurabh Tola S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Tola Aged About 25 Years Director- M/s Nutan Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd., A-4 Farishta Complex Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur C.G. R/o 401, Lakjora Apartment, Mova Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. B. P. Shrma, Advocate along with Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Nikhil Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hearing Mr. Somya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.07 16:38:13 +0530 2 2. Vide order dated 29.01.2026, notice was issued to the Respondent No. 2. Upon service of notice to the Respondent No. 2, none has appeared on his behalf to make his submission in the present case. 3. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash the entire final report / charge sheet No.234/2022 dated 10.11.2022 filed consequent to registration of FIR No. 167/2022 in Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur at the instance respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, including the order taking cognizance dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Criminal Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 15628/2022 and all consequential proceedings being illegal and amounting to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and in violation of petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights, in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of the same FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings in which the principal accused, namely, Swapnil Mittal and others, had preferred a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS before this Court. The said petition has already been allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed in CRMP No. 1245 of 2026 (Swapnil Mittal & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the FIR, charge- sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of compromise. It is, therefore, submitted that since the present petitioner is also an accused in the very same crime and the prosecution against him arises out of the same set of facts and proceedings, he is entitled to the same relief, and the present 3 petition also deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that since the Division Bench of this Court has already quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the same crime vide judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed in CRMP No. 1245 of 2026 (Swapnil Mittal & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), he has no objection if the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the same crime, namely FIR No. 167/2022 dated 09.06.2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, from which the present criminal proceedings arise. It is further not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 06.05.2026 passed in CRMP No. 1245 of 2026 (Swapnil Mittal & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), has already quashed the aforesaid FIR, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of an amicable settlement entered into between the complainant and the accused persons. 8. The Division Bench, after taking note of the nature of the dispute, the compromise arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1; and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process 4 of law and accordingly quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 9. Since the petitioner herein is also an accused in the very same crime and the criminal proceedings emanate from the same FIR, charge- sheet and order of cognizance, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the proceedings to continue against the present petitioner, particularly when the very foundation of the prosecution has already been quashed by the Division Bench. Continuation of the prosecution against the present petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 10. Accordingly, following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in CRMP No. 1245 of 2026 (Swapnil Mittal & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 11. Consequently, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 11.11.2022, the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet submitted in FIR No. 167/2022 dated 09.06.2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner in Criminal Case No. 15628/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Santosh @ Bunty Sahu & Others), insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika