1 2026:CGHC:7773-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 449 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sippi Agrawal W/o Sushil Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Ward No. 6, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 2 - Sushil Agrawal S/o Late Shri Hetram Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 3 - Vinay Agrawal S/o Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 4 - Umang Agrawal S/o Vikas Kumar Agrawal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 5 - Satish Agrawal S/o Late Shri Hetram Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 6 - Shantanu Agrawal S/o Satish Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 7 - Vikas Kumar Agrawal S/o Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.13 18:56:51 +0530 2 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 2 - Basant Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Hetram Agrwal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. 3 - Shubh Agrawal S/o Basant Kumar Agrawal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Police Station Naya Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12 .02.2026 1. Heard I.A. No. 2 which is an application for grant of permission to compound the offence on the basis of compromise. 2. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayer:- 3 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the of Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2025, for the offence punishable u/s 191(2), 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising out of order of Committal order dated 13.11.2025 and cognizance order dated 19.11.2025 passed in criminal case no. 139/2025 First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, 195/2025 dated on the basis of Final Report bearing no. 04.06.2025 submitted by the police station Baradwar dist Sakti (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate Sakti (C.G.) in no. 98/2025, under section connection with crime 191(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 of BNSS 2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that The present petition arises out of FIR No. 139/2025 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in relation to a family dispute that occurred on 02.06.2025 at the rice mill premises owned by the family. The prosecution case alleges that during a verbal altercation regarding use of the rice mill and adjoining godown, a scuffle took place in which Basant Agrawal sustained injuries, allegedly caused by petitioner No. 2. The petitioners submit that the incident arose out of sudden misunderstanding and long-standing property disputes among close family members, and that both sides had lodged cross FIRs. 4 Subsequently, with the intervention of elders, all disputes were amicably settled and a written Settlement Deed was executed, pursuant to which the parties approached this Hon’ble Court in CRMP No. 3254/2025. Though the Hon’ble Court directed verification of the compromise, the police filed charge-sheet No. 195/2025 without proper verification and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 06.11.2025, leading to registration of Sessions Trial No. 56/2025 and framing of charges on 05.01.2026. The petitioners contend that in view of the amicable settlement and the purely personal nature of the dispute, continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. 4. During pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of respectable elders, relatives, and well-wishers of the family, both sides have amicably resolved all disputes, misunderstandings, and grievances and have entered into a written Settlement Deed and under the said Settlement Deed, both sides have voluntarily agreed to:- (i) End all existing disputes and litigation between them, including the present FIR and cross-FIRs; (ii) Cooperate with each other before the Hon'ble Court and concerned Police Station in compounding and closure of criminal proceedings; and (iii) Maintain peace, goodwill, and harmony within the family in future 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present case arises out of a purely personal and familial dispute, which has 5 now been amicably resolved between the parties. The complainant/injured has categorically stated, by way of affidavit, that he has no objection if the offences alleged against the petitioners are compounded and the criminal proceedings are brought to an end. The incident in question occurred due to sudden misunderstanding and provocation in the heat of the moment, without any premeditation, and the injuries sustained were simple in nature. The alleged offences are not heinous or grave in character so as to affect public peace or societal interest at large. In view of the voluntary compromise executed between the parties and their desire to restore cordial family relations, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit compounding of the offences and quash the criminal proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3 would submit that the respondent No. 2 and 3 have no objection if Criminal Case No. 56/2025, pending before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti for the offences under Sections 191 (2), 296, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 109 of the B.N.S. 2023 is quashed, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the State, in turn, submits that the State has no objection in case if the matter is disposed of by quashing further criminal proceeding pending before the learned First Additional 6 Sessions Judge, Sakti as the parties have already entered into compromise. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 528 of BNSS /482 CrPC to compound the offence. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303) and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466] 9. In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:- 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 7 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 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466], has been held as under;- 8 “29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation..…” 11. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 12. In view of the statement made by the complainant and the accused persons and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another (2003 (4) SCC 675) and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 13. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 02 is disposed of and the present petition under Section 582 of B.N.S.S. is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR bearing Crime No. 139/2025 registered under Section 191 (2), 296, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 109 of BNS all consequential proceedings, order dated 06.11.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti and order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56/2025, passed by learned First 9 Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti and the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 56/2025 stands quashed against the petitioners, who are the accused persons in that case. 14. The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika