Chattisgarh High Court

Gajendra Swami Alias Gajju Swami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2025

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2025:CGHC:52-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2719 of 2024

1 - Gajendra Swami Alias Gajju Swami S/o Maghadas Swami Aged About 40
Years R/o Village - Gundpaliya , Post - Chapra Tehsil And P.S. Laadnu , District
- Nagour, Rajasthan

2 - Ajay Singh Rajput S/o Ram Singh Aged About 22 Years Gram - Chapra
(Laadnu ), P.S. Jaswantgarh District - Deedwana - Kuchaman Rajasthan

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Cyber
Cell, Range- Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Sunil Choudhary S/o Mahadev Choudhary R/o Parijat Extension Nehru
Nagar Bilaspur Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C,g.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Order on Board
2

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

02/01/2025

1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, the Petitioners are praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) The Hon'ble may kindly Call for the entire records of the case and after hearing the parties be pleased to allow the instant Petition.

(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Petition by quashing and/or setting aside the Impugned F.I.R. No. 06/2023 dated 14.09.2023, the impugned Charge-sheet dated 02/2023 filed on 18.07.2024 and the Criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal case no. 5949/2024.

(iii) Any other Relief(s)/ Direction(s)/ Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the petitioners' case may be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

2. Brief facts of the case emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that

the Respondent No. 2/complainant, who was a senior manager in

Punjab National Bank, Sirgitti Bilaspur branch, had come into contact

with one Anisha Sharma, who claimed to be working as HR, Coin-Switch

Exchange Investment Management Company Ltd. Under certain

allurement/ assurance of the said accused Anisha Sharma, the

Respondent No. 2/ complainant made online payment through various

transactions amounting to Rs. 15,04,850/-. When he was further asked

to deposit Rs. 8,80,000/-, then he felt suspicious and refused to deposit

the same and had made a written complaint to the police, which

culminated into registration of the FIR of Crime No. 6/2023, registered at

Cyber Police Station, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur under Sections 420 and

34 of IPC, Sections 66-C, 66-D and 43 of Information Technology Act,

2000. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 2/2024 is

filed against the present Petitioners as well as another accused Antar

Patel for the aforesaid offences, before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Criminal Case No. 5949 of 2024 is registered

in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and the

proceeding of the trial of the case is going on.

3. During the proceeding of the criminal case before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, the complainant/Respondent No.2 as well

as the accused No. 1 and 2/Petitioners have settled their dispute and

entered into compromise. A deed of compromise was also executed

between them on 16.08.2024 and the complainant does not want to

pursue his complaint further against the present Petitioners/accused

No.1 and 2. The relevant part of the deed of compromise, which is

annexed as Annexure A-2 in the present petition is necessary to be

made as a part of this order, which is as under:

"2. यह कि, उपरोक्त प्रकरण में आरोपीगण क्रमांक 01 व 02 तथा प्रकरण

के प्रार्थी सुनील चौधरी के मध्य आपसी सौहाद्रपूर्ण वातावरण में समझौता हो चुका है, समझौते के एवज में आरोपीगण क्रमांक 01 व 02 के द्वारा अपने

भाई अर्जुन स्वामी के माध्यम से प्रार्थी सुनील चौधरी को 12,00,000/- रू (बारह लाख रूपये) नुकसानी एवं क्षतिपूर्ति सहित प्रदान कर रहे हैं। प्रार्थी

उपरोक्त राशि से पूर्ण तः संतुष्ट है तथा अपने पूर्ण होशो-हवास में तथा बिना किसी डर, भय, अथवा प्रलोभन के समझौता कर रहा है।

3. यह कि, आरोपीगण क्रमांक 01 व 02 से समझौता होने के उपरांत

वर्तमान में लंबित इस प्रकरण से आरोपीगण क्रमांक 01 व 02 के विरूद्ध आरोपों का उपशमन करते हुए प्रकरण इन आरोपीगण क्रमांक 01 व 02 की

सीमा तक इन आरोपीगण को प्रकरण से उपशमित करते हुए मुक्त किये

जाने में इस प्रार्थी को कोई भी आपत्ति नहीं है।"

4. After entering into compromise with the accused No. 1 and 2, an

application under Section 320(2) of CRPC has been filed by the accused

No.1 and 2/ Petitioners for compounding of the offences against them.

Along with the application filed on 16.08.2024 before the learned trial

Court, the affidavit of the complainant/Respondent No. 2 has also been

filed in which he also verified the terms of the compromise.

5. On 16.08.2024, after hearing the parties on the application of Section

320(2) of CRPC filed by the accused No. 1 and 2/Petitioners, the learned

trial Court has accepted the compromise between the complainant- Sunil

Choudhary and accused No. 1- Ajay Singh Rajput and accused No. 2-

Gajendra @ Gajju Swami with respect to the offence of Section 420 of

IPC and Section 66-C, 66-D and 43 of Information Technology Act, 2000

and has acquitted the Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 from the above

offences. However, by holding that the offence of Section 120-B of IPC is

not compoundable, rejected the prayer for compounding the offence of

Section 120-B also and directed to continue the proceeding of the

criminal case against the Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 for the offence

of Section 120-B of IPC, thereafter the Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2

have filed the present petition for quashing of the impugned FIR No.

6/2023 registered at Cyber Police Station, Bilaspur Range and Charge-

sheet No. 2/2024, dated 18.07.2024 pending before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 5949/2024.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that during the

pendency of the criminal case, the complainant as well as the accused

No. 1 and 2, Ajay Singh Rajput and Gajendra @ Gajju Swami have

entered into compromise and executed a deed of settlement on

16.08.2024 and filed the application before the learned trial Court for

compounding of the offence for all practical purposes as also

compounding of all the offences against the accused No. 1 and 2

including the offence of Section 120-B of IPC. The learned trial Court

has refused the prayer for compounding of the offence of Section 120-B

of IPC as the same is not compoundable. He would further submit that

although the offence of 120-B of IPC is not compoundable, but keeping

in view the fact that the complainant has settled his grievances qua the

present Petitioners, and he might not have turned for giving evidence

against them, and there is every possibility of their acquittal in the

offence, then it would not be proper for them to face the trial before the

Criminal Court even after they settle their dispute. Therefore, the FIR as

well as charge sheet against the Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 namely

Ajay Singh Rajput and Gajendra @ Gajju Swami for the offence of

Section 120-B of IPC may be quashed on the basis of compromise

arrived at between them.

7. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent No. 2/complainant, has stated that he would be filing of the

power in the case for Respondent No.2 during the course of the day

itself. However, he has not disputed the compromise between the

Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 as well as the Complainant, and has no

objection if the proceeding of the criminal case against the Petitioners/

accused No. 1 and 2- Ajay Singh Rajput and Gajendra @ Gajju Swami is

being quashed with respect to the offence of Section 120-B of IPC.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record of the present petition.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B S Joshi and others v.

State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as

under:

"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."

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 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. Further, in the matter of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble 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 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."

12. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have arrived at

compromise on 16.08.2024 and a deed of compromise has also been

executed between the complainant/Respondent No.2 and the

Petitioners/ accused No. 1 and 2- Ajay Singh Rajput and Gajendra @

Gajju Swami and a copy of said compromise deed has also been

annexed as Annexure A-2 at page No. 71 of the petition along with the

copy of affidavit, which is submitted before the learned trial Court,

application of Section 320(2) of the CrPC dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure

A-3) and also from the order sheet dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 5949/2024, by which

offence of Section 420 of IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D and 43 of

Information Technology Act, 2000 have been compounded and prayer

for compound the offence of Section 120-B of IPC qua the present

Petitioners is rejected, and also in view of the above cited judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that

object of law is not only to punish the culprit, but to maintain peace,

tranquility and harmony in the society, therefore, in the aforesaid

circumstances of the case and as well as in view of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers

under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the

proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 5949/2024 for the offence under

Section 120-B of IPC against the accused No. 1 Ajay Singh Rajput and

accused No. 2 Gajendra @ Gajju Swami (Petitioners) are hereby

quashed in view of the settlement between the complainant as well as

the Petitioners /accused No. 1 and 2. The rest of the offences have

already been compounded against the Petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2

by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 16.08.2024. Ordered

accordingly.

13. The instant CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
                        Sd/-                                          Sd/-
             (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                            (Ramesh Sinha)
                      Judge                                        Chief Justice

ved
 