Chattisgarh High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 June, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 59 of 2021
Bhupinder Singh, S/o Gurunam Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Village- Badala, Jouhal, District Amritsar (Punjab), Amritsar, Rural,
Punjab (India).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Station House Officer, Police
Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.)
2. Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
3. Graduate Properties Ltd., Through :- President Ashok Kumar
Gupta, S/o Late Laxman Das Gupta, Aged About 68 Years,
Caste- Baniya, R/o Block- 20B, Plot No. 5 & 6, Nehru Nagar,
West Bhilai, Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For State/Res. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
10/06/2021
1. The petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of the FIR
dated 15.06.2018 lodged by respondent No. 1 against the
petitioner- Bhupinder Singh before Police Station- Supela,
Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under
Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. The FIR was registered as FIR No.
0548.
2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner in this case, are
that a sale deed was executed between one Smt. Sarjeet
Kaur, who is mother of the petitioner and respondent No. 1-
Graduate Properties Ltd. through its President Ashok Kumar
Gupta for sale of immovable property as per description given
in sale deed (Annexure P/2) and in pursuance of the sale
deed, she has received Rs. 50 lakh from respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 has lodged FIR against the petitioner along
with two other co-accused namely Smt. Sarjeet Kaur &
Ramesh Kumar Agrawal before Police Station- Supela, Tahsil
& District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under Section
420, 34 of I.P.C. on 15.06.2018.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
mother of the petitioner- Smt. Sarjeet Kaur has filed a civil suit
before learned First Additional District Judge, Durg (Annexure
P/3) on 04.04.2018 against respondent No. 1 with a prayer
that the agreement arrived at between Smt. Sarjeet Kaur and
respondent No. 1 dated 31.07.2017 be declared null and void,
which has been executed adopting fraud against her. The
petitioner on above factual ground, has filed this petition under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 548
registered on 15.06.2018, which has been registered alleging
violation of Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. by the petitioner & two
other co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the present petitioner, is a witness of the sale
deed dated 31.07.2017, which was executed between Smt.
Sarjeet Kaur and respondent No. 1- Graduate Properties Ltd.
through its President Ashok Kumar Gupta. The petitioner has
also been implicated as accused in the offence committed
under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. and FIR No. 548 dated
15.06.2018 has been registered against him. In the FIR, it has
been stated by the complainant- respondent No. 1 that the
present petitioner and one Ramesh Kumar Gupta have signed
the sale deed as witnesses with common intention with Smt.
Sarjeet Kaur, who has committed the offence under Section
420, 34 of I.P.C., therefore, the FIR has been registered
against him also. The compromise order dated 26.11.2018
has also been filed by the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the
compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the
offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. is now compoundable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the
judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMP
No. 344 of 2015 (Santosh Chandak & others Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh). He has also placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & others Vs.
State of Haryana & another1 and Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab2.
6. Considering the facts that now there is no dispute between the
petitioner and respondent No. 1, offence under Section 420,
34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner, which
relates to purchase of property and the same has been settled
between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 1
have also been examined by the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court on 27.01.2021, wherein, the petitioner
and respondent No. 1 have recorded their statement and it
has been said that the said dispute has been settled between
the parties, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have
submitted before Additional Registrar (Judicial) that their
dispute is settled and now there is no dispute between them.
Respondent No. 1 has submitted that in view of the
compromise arrived at between them and the judgment dated
26.11.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Durg
(C.G.), he does not want to prosecute the proceeding further
and if the proceeding is quashed, he has no objection.
7. It is not in dispute that at the instance of respondent No. 1,
offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. has been registered
against the petitioner, which relates to the purchase of
property, the dispute has been settled between the parties,
petitioner and respondent No. 1 have been examined before
the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and they have submitted in
equal words that matter has been settled and no dispute is
existing. Since offence under Section 420, 34 of I.P.C. is
compoundable with the leave of the Court, therefore, the FIR
1 (2003) 4 SCC 675
2 (2012) 10 SCC 303
in question bearing FIR No. 0548 registered on 15.06.2018
against the petitioner before Police Station- Supela, Tahsil &
District- Durg (C.G.) for committing offence under Section 420,
34 of I.P.C., deserves to be and is accordingly quashed in the
interest of justice.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate for closure of the case in the event of filing of
charge-sheet by the State.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
