1 2026:CGHC:17101-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 951 of 2026 1 - Swapnil Mittal S/o Suresh Kumar Mittal Aged About 39 Years Partner Of M/s S M Shop, S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Mittal, R/o D6 Sector-2, Agroha Society Behind Rewa Showroom, Raipura, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 2 - Garima Mittal W/o Swapnil Mittal Aged About 39 Years Partner Of M/s S M Shop, S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Mittal, R/o D6 Sector-2, Agroha Society Behind Rewa Showroom, Raipura, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 3 - Suresh Kumar Mittal S/o Prahalad Mittal Aged About 67 Years Partner Of M/s S M Shop, R/o D6 Sector-2, Agroha Society Behind Rewa Showroom, Raipura, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 4 - Piyush Rathi W/o Shri Suresh Kuamr Rathi Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 15/887, Mamta Hospital, Jawahar Nagar, District Raipur (Cg) 5 - Vikaram Singh S/o Shri Ramashray Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o E-70, Sankalp Vatika, Samta Colony Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 6 - Smt. Neha Singh W/o Vikram Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o E-70, Sankalp Vatika, Samta Colony Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - M/s Chhattisgarh Steels Through Its Partner Mr. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal. R/o Main Road Jawahar Nagar Raipur District- Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.16 11:26:51 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : : Ms Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State as well as Mr. Prashant Sahu, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs:- “1. Quash and set aside Charge-Sheet bearing No. 222 of 2023, filed under Sections 120B & 420, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitted by Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur in FIR No. 163 of 2022, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground of compromise, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners. 2. Quash and set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offencesunder Sections 120B & 420,201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners. 3. Quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 22580 of 2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 120B & 420,201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur Raipur, District Raipur, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners. as continuation of the said trial would amount to abuse of the process of Court in light of the amicable settlement between the parties. 3 4. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice” 3. The present petition arises out of FIR No. 163/2022 dated 07.06.2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur for offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC, wherein the petitioners, partners of “S M Shop” engaged in TMT steel trading, have been arraigned as accused. The complainant alleged that between 03.05.2022 and 09.05.2022, approximately 520 tons of TMT steel worth about ₹3.70 crore was supplied to the petitioners, for which payment was not made. The petitioners contend that the goods were further sold in the ordinary course of business to third parties, namely Rampal Steel, Kabeer Steel, and Santosh Steel, but payments were not received from them despite repeated follow-ups and issuance of legal notice dated 05.06.2022. It is submitted that the dispute is purely commercial in nature arising out of non-payment in business transactions, with no element of dishonest intention or criminality. During investigation, no material was found indicating misappropriation or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioners; however, the police still filed a charge-sheet, and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners further submit that multiple similar FIRs were lodged within a short span across jurisdictions as a pressure tactic, reflecting abuse of criminal process. Subsequently, during pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement dated 09.12.2025, agreeing to resolve the dispute for Rs. 18,44,000/- as full and final payment, and the complainant consented to quashing of proceedings. However, the trial court rejected the compounding application due to inclusion of Section 120B IPC, leading the petitioners to file the present 4 petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after registration of the FIR against the present petitioners, the parties have entered into a compromise and a settlement agreement has also been executed between the parties on 09.12.2025 which is filed in the present petition. Since the dispute has been resolved and the matter has been compromised between the parties, there is no ultimate chance of their conviction and therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioners may be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/ complainant has not disputed the fact that they have entered into the compromise and settled their dispute, as also the contents of the settlement agreement executed between the parties on 09/12/2025. In view of the settlement agreement dated 09/12/2025, the complainant is having no objection in quashing of the FIR No. 163 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Section 120-B and 420 of IPC as well as the Criminal proceeding of the criminal case No. 22580 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the document annexed with the petition by either side as well as the settlement agreement dated 09/12/2025. 5 7. The terms of settlement between the parties as reflected in the settlement agreement dated 09/12/2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- 1. यह की पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 अपनी आज दिनीकी तकी की बकीय रशि रुपय 3,68,79,212/- जिजसकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 स प्राप्त कीरनी ह उसकी प र्ण" रूप स आपस समांझौ%त अनी&सर मांफ़ कीरत हुए की वल समांझौ%त रशि रुपए 18,44,000/- की सम्पू र्ण" भु&गतनी की रूप मां/ लनी की सहर्ष" रूप स रज ह एव प र्ण" रूप स स्वकीर कीरत ह2। 2. यह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 द्वार आज दिनीकी तकी प्रास्तकिवत बकीय रशि समांझौ%त अनी&सर की वल रशि 18,44,000/- की भु&गतनी कीरनी की शिलए अपनी प र्ण" सहमांकित एव रजमां6 प्रानी कीरत ह2। 3. यह किकी इस इकीरनीमां द्वार पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की ओर स श्री स&र मिमांतल, पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 की उपरक्त समांझौ%त रशि रुपय 18,44,000/- ICICI Bank, Devendra Nagar Branch, Raipur की चैकी क्रमांकी 000202 चैकी दिनीकी 09/12/2025 की मांध्यमां स प र्ण" रूप स अ कीरत ह2 जिजस पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 द्वार प्राप्त किकीय गय। जिजसकी ब SM SHOP एव उसकी सर भुगर> की सर नीर समांप्त ह जएग। 4. यह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 इस इकीररनीमां द्वार स्वकीर कीरत ह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 द्वार उपरक्त चैकी की मांध्यमां स भु&गतनी हनी की उपरत पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 स उपरक्त रशि की सम्बन्ध मां/ किकीस भु मां मां/ कीई भु रशि लनी र्ष नीहB रहग। 5. यह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 किवर्ष रूप स स्वकीर कीरत ह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की किवरुद्ध बकीय रशि की भु&गतनी की शिलए कीई भु कीनी नी व अन्य प्राकीर की कीय"वह नीहB कीर/ग। पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 यह भु स्वकीर कीरत ह2 किकी आज दिनीकी स प व" पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 की पस पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की यदि कीई भु चैकी स&रक्षर्थ" रखा हुआ र्थ उस इस इकीररनीमां की अनी&सर पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की वपस कीर ग। 6. यह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 यह भु स्वकीर कीरत ह किकी यदि आज दिनीकी स प व" पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की किवरुद्ध कीई चैकी अनीरर्ण स सबमिGत प्राकीरर्ण किकीस भु न्ययलय मां/ प्रास्त&त किकीय ह त वह उस वपस ल लग य किकीस भु प&शिलस र्थनी मां/ उपरक्त रशि की वस ल स सबमिGत कीई शिकीयत प्रास्त&त की गई हग त इस कीररनीमां की किनीष्पनी स वह 6  न्य एव अमांन्य मांनी जएग और नी ह पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 की पस यदि कीई चैकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 की उपलब्ध हग त उस भुकिवष्य मां/ उपरक्त रशि की वस ल हत& किकीस भु कीनी नी प्राकिक्रय मां/ उपयग नीहB कीरग। 7. यह किकी, इस इकीररनीमां की किनीष्पनी उपरत नी> पक्षकीर स्पष्ट रूप स स्वकीर कीरत ह2 किकी नी> की एकी- दूसर स आज की ब कीई भु रशि की लनी नी र्ष नीहB रह जएग और नी ह कीई कीनी नी मांमांल लकिबत ह और नी ह यर कीर/ग और नी> पक्ष एकी- दूसर की किवरुद्ध भुकिवष्य मां/ उपरक्त रशि की सबG मां/ कीई कीनी नी प्राकीरर्ण प्रास्त&त नीहB कीर/ग। 8. यह किकी, पक्षकीर क्रमांकी-1 द्वार की गई शिकीयत की आGर पर प&शिलस र्थनी Azad Chowk, Raipur मां/ एफ.आई.आर. क्रमांकी 163/2022 ज" की गई ह, तर्थ किववचैनी उपरत उक्त प्राकीरर्ण अपरमिGकी प्राकीरर्ण क्रमांकी 22580/2023 की रूप मां/ पजबद्ध हकीर मांनीनीय न्यमियकी डामिGकीर प्रार्थमां श्रीर्ण, रयप&र, जिजल रयप&र (छत्तीसगढ़) की न्ययलय की समांक्ष लकिबत ह। प्रार्थमां पक्षकीर यह वचैनी त/ त ह किकी उपय&"क्त प्राकीरर्ण की रजनीमां/ समांझौ%त की आGर पर समांप्त कीरनी हत& आवश्यकीतनी&सर यर्थघ्र उशिचैत कीय"वह जस किकी सबमिGत आवनी प्रास्त&त कीरनी, बयनी नी इत्यदि - कीरग/कीरग। आवश्यकीत पड़नी पर प्रार्थमां पक्षकीर अन्य किकीस भु न्ययलय अर्थव अमिGकीरर्ण की समांक्ष उपस्थिXकित कीर, किबनी किकीस किहचैकिकीचैहट य किवलब की , प्राकीरर्ण की रजनीमां की आGर पर प्राकीरर्ण की समांस्त अभिभुय&क्त> की खिखालफ अपरमिGकी प्राकीरर्ण क्रमांकी 22580/2023 समांप्त कीरनी हत& सभु आवश्यकी सहयग प्रानी कीरग। 9. यह किकी पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 1 यह भु स्वकीर कीरत ह किकी इस इकीररनीमां की किनीष्पनी उपरत वह पक्षकीर क्रमांकी 2 स र्ष बकीय रशि की मांफ़ कीरत ह एव भुकिवष्य मां/ बकीय रशि की वस ल स सबमिGत कीई 6वनी एव फ%जर मां&कीमां प्रास्त&त नीहB कीरग। 10. यह किकी, अगर उपरक्त वर्णिर्ण]त चैकी अनीरिरत हत ह2 त यह इकीररनीमां  न्य मांनी जयग। 8. Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of BS Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as under:- 7 "If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. it is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Court on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 9. Further, in the matter of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Honble Supreme court has held:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 8 committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc, cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 10.Further, in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6, SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme court has held that: "29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed 9 when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases." 11.In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the compromise arrived at between the parties and execution of settlement deed in between them. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 22580 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence under Section 120-B and 420, 201 of IPC, arising out of the Crime No. 163/2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, charge-sheet No. 222/2023 submitted by Azad Police Station, Raipur for the offence under section 120-B and 420, 201 of IPC, order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 22580/2023 and further the charges framed thereunder are hereby quashed against the petitioner No.1 Swapnil Mittal, No. 2 Garima Sharma, No. 3 Suresh Mittal, No. 4 Piyush Rathi, No.5 Vikram Singh and No. 6 Smt. Neha Singh, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of compromise. 12.Accordingly, the instant CRMP is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika