1 CGHC010072052023 2026:CGHC:35554-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 450 of 2023 Dheerendra Sahu S/o Shri Prahlad Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Kududand Bilaspur Near Ram Mandir P.S. City Kotwali Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Thana Incharge, Thana/P.S. City Kotwali, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.13 10:34:31 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR lodged by the petitioner before respondent against Directors of Tattvam Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Company namely Rajesh Shiv Shankar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC as Crime No. 261 of 2021 dated 30.08.2021 in the interest of justice (Anneuxre P/1).” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had lodged an FIR at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, against the Directors of Tattvam Marketing Pvt. Ltd., namely Rajesh Shiv Shankar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which was registered as Crime No. 261/2021 dated 30.08.2021. He further submits that the dispute arose out of a negotiation between the petitioner and Tattvam Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Halol, Gujarat, regarding the sale and purchase of mushroom seeds, pursuant to which the petitioner had invested certain amount of money. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid transaction was entered into prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and, thereafter, owing to the nationwide lockdown, the accused Company could not fulfill the purpose of the said transaction. The failure on the part of the Company was thus not 3 intentional, but occurred in the circumstances prevailing during the relevant period. He also submitted that the entire amount/damages suffered by the petitioner have since been reimbursed by the accused Company and, consequently, no dispute or grievance remains subsisting between the petitioner and the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 06.02.2023 before the concerned respondent seeking withdrawal of his complaint/FIR registered as Crime No. 261/2021, but the said representation was not received/acted upon by the concerned authority. He further stated that the petitioner has received the entire amount due to him and does not wish to prosecute the criminal case any further against the accused persons. The petitioner, therefore, has no objection to the proceedings arising out of Crime No. 261/2021 being brought to an end. It is also submitted that, till date, no charge-sheet has been filed before the competent trial Court in connection with the aforesaid crime. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Hon’ble Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice, particularly when the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, the petitioner has received the entire amount/damages, and he is no longer interested in prosecuting the accused persons. He further submitted that although there is no specific provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for closing the criminal proceedings in such 4 circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court may appropriately be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that an interim order was passed by this Court on 01.03.2023 staying the effect and operation of the impugned FIR, and consequently, the investigation could not be completed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with due care. 9. It is undisputed that the petitioner himself is the complainant who had lodged the impugned FIR against the accused persons and has approached this Court seeking quashing of the same on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. However, since an interim order was passed by this Court on 01.03.2023 staying the effect and operation of the impugned FIR, the investigation could not be completed and the compromise between the parties has not yet been verified by the Investigating Officer. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner and the accused persons are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. Upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer shall verify the compromise in accordance with law and shall submit the final police report under Section 193(3) of the 5 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.) before the competent Court within a period of two weeks from the date of verification of the compromise. 11. The interim order dated 01.03.2023, whereby the effect and operation of the impugned FIR was stayed, stands vacated. The parties shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the process of verification of the compromise and completion of the investigation. 12. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, shall ensure due compliance with this order and shall ensure that the final police report is submitted within the time stipulated hereinabove. 13. Learned State counsel is directed to apprise the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, of the contents of this order for necessary information and compliance. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan