Chattisgarh High Court

Rohit Agrawal vs Deepak Kumar Dubey on 4 September, 2025

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                            1



SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally                                                      2025:CGHC:45445
signed by
SYED                                                                     NAFR
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              CRMP No. 1064 of 2025
            1. Rohit Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Avtar Agrawal Aged About
              47 Years R/o Opposite Pgbt College, P.S. Tarbahar, Dist -
              Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ... Petitioner(s)
                                          versus
            1. Deepak Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Madhav Murari Dubey
              Aged About 63 Years R/o Bhagwanganj Near Kaboola Bridge,
              Police Station Cantt., District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
            2. Ashish Agrawal S/o Ram Avatar Agrawal Aged About 56
              Years R/o Opposite Pgbt College, Ps - Tarbahar, Dist -
              Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
            3. Deepak Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Madhav Murari Dubey
              Aged About 64 Years R/o House No. 356, Napier Town,
              Police Station Omtee, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya
              Pradesh
            4. L.P. Dwivedi Inspector And The Then Station House Officer,
              Police    Station   Civil   Lines,   Bilaspur,    District   Bilaspur,
              Chhattisgarh
            5. Basant Rao S/o Late Shri Shankar Rao R/o Kududand, Police
              Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
            6. Mohanlal S/o Shri Narayan Das R/o Sindhi Colony Bilaspur,
              Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)
             7. Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Asharam Yadav R/o Sarkanda, Police
                          Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...
                                                                   Respondents

1. Ashish Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Avtar Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o Opp Pgbt College, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Petitioner versus

1. Deepak Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Madhav Murari Dubey Aged About 63 Years R/o Bhagwanganj Near Kaboola Bridge, Police Station Cantt., District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

2. Rohit Agrawal S/o Ram Avatar Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Opposite Pgbt College, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G)

3. Deepak Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Madhav Murari Dubey Aged About 64 Years R/o House No. 356, Napier Town, Police Station Omtee, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

4. L.P. Dwivedi Inspector And The Then Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (As Per Date 11-02-2014 and Investigating Officer In Crime No. 575/12 For Offences Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 34 Of Indian Penal Code And Also If Any Other Investigating/police Officer

5. Basant Rao S/o Late Shri Shankar Rao R/o Kududand, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. Mohanlal S/o Shri Narayan Das R/o Sindhi Colony Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

7. Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Asharam Yadav R/o Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 & 4 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava,Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 & 4 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava,Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 4/9/2025

1. As the above two petitions arise out of the order dated

5.2.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.8/2018, therefore, the same

are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in both petitions

would argue that respondent No.1 lodged report against

petitioner in the concerned police station and when no action

was taken on his report, respondent No.1 filed an application

under Section 200 CrPC before the learned Magistrate, which

came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2020.

Aggrieved therewith respondent No.1 preferred revision which

came to be allowed by learned revisional Court vide order

impugned directing the learned Magistrate to proceed against

with the complaint case filed in accordance with law by

issuign process and following due process of law. It is

contended that impugned order of revisional Court is subject

matter of these petitions. He next submitted that during

pendency of these petitions, settlement has been arrived at

between the parties and a settlement deed has been

executed between them on 27.6.2025, which is filed as

Annexure R-1 along with reply filed on behalf of respondent

No.1. He next contended that first appeal bearing No.68/2023

(Ashish Agrawal & anr Vs. Deepak Kumar Dubey & ors) filed

by petitioner herein against the judgment and decree dated

21.4.2023 passed in favour of respondent No.1 has been

withdrawn vide order dated 7.8.2025 in terms of settlement

deed, Annexure R1-1. Hence, he prays that order impugned

be set aside.

3. Learned Senior Counsel as also other counsel appearing on

behalf of respective respondents do not dispute above

submission made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner

based on settlement deed, Annexure R1-1 and submit that

now the parties have settled their disputes out of court and

accordingly settlement deed is executed.

4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the

documents on record of petition.

5. Respondent No.1 filed return annexing a copy of settlement

deed dated 27.6.2025 executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-

in presence of a witness and the same is notarized also.

Perusal of settlement deed would show that the parties to

settlement deed have arrived at an amicable settlement

whereby they agreed that no further claims, disputes, actions,

by whatever name called, by and between the parties shall lie

and to withdraw each and every claim against each other.

Terms of settlement deed are extracted below for ready

reference:-

"4- यह कि पक्ष क्र. 02 एवं पक्ष क्र. 01 के मध्य बिना किसी दबाव या प्रलोभन के आपसी बातचीत से भूमि खसरा नंबर 1003/1/ख 1003/1/ग, रकबा 0.20 एकड़ एवं 0.20 एकड़ कु ल 0.40 एकड़ ग्राम मंगला तहसील व जिला बिलासपुर से उद्भूत समस्त दिवानी एवं फौजदारी प्रकरणों / विवादों के संबंध में सुलह एवं राजीनामा हो गया है। दोनो ही पक्ष उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रकरणों पर अब बल नहीं देना चाहते एवं जो न्यायालय में लंबित है, को राजीनामा अनुसार वापस लेना चाहते है। अतेव उक्त राजीनामा के क्रियान्वयन एवं संपादन की शर्ते निम्नानुसार है:-

1- यह कि पक्ष क्र. 01 भूमि खसरा नंबर 1003/1/ख, 1003/1/ग, रकबा 0.20 एकड़ एवं 0.20 एकड़ कु ल 0.40 एकड़ ग्राम मंगला तहसील व जिला बिलासपुर पर पक्ष क्र.02 के स्वत्व को स्वीकार करेगा और उस पर राजीनामा पश्चात् कोई दावा दखल नहीं करेगा तथा प्रथम अपील क्र. 68/2003 पर बल न देकर राजीनामा के आधार पर निराकृ त करवायेगा और आधिपत्य सौपेगा।

2- यह कि पक्ष क्र. 02 द्वारा पक्ष क्र. 01 के विरूद्ध संस्थित किया गया परिवाद अंतर्गत धारा 200 पर कोई बल नहीं देगा और उसे वापस लेने के लिए आवेदन एवं समस्त विधिक कार्यवाही सम्पादित करेगा। इसी प्रक्रम में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष पक्ष क्र. 01 द्वारा प्रस्तुत सी.आर.एम.पी. क्र. 1061/2025 एवं 1064 / 2025, जिसमें पक्ष

क्र.02 भी पक्षकार है, में अपना वकालतनामा एवं जवाब प्रस्तुत कर राजीनामा के आधार पर पक्ष क्र. 01 के विरूद्ध आरोपित अपराध अंतर्गत धारा 420, 467, 468, 34 भा.द.वि. की रिपोर्ट / न्यायालीन आदेश निरस्त करने हेतु अनापत्ति प्रस्तुत करेगा तथा दाण्डिक प्रकरण समाप्त करने हेतु सहयोग एवं कार्यवाही करेंगा। 3- यह कि उपरोक्त प्रकरणों के अतिरिक्त यदि कोई भी अन्य शिकायत प्रकरण या किसी भी प्रकार की कार्यवाही उभय पक्ष के द्वारा एक-दूसरे के विरूद्ध की गई होगी तो उसे भी उभयपक्ष विधिवत समाप्त करायेंगे और कोई भी दिवानी या फौजदारी प्रकरण किसी भी न्यायालय या शासकीय अधिकारी या किसी भी मध्यस्तथा में वादसंपत्ति के संबंध में अगर कोई प्रकरण लंबित होगा तो उसे भी इस राजीनामा के तहत समाप्त कराया जायेगा एवं भविष्य में कोई दावा या कार्यवाही एक-दूसरे के विरूद्ध नहीं करेंगे।

4- यह कि यह राजीनामा उभय पक्ष के परिवारजनों एवं विधिक वारिसानों पर भी लागु होगा एवं भविष्य में न ही उनके द्वारा उभय पक्ष के विरूद्ध कोई भी दीवानी या फौजदारी मामला दर्ज कर सकें गे।

दोनों ही पक्षकारों में से किसी भी एक पक्षकार द्वारा, उप्रोक्तानुसार न्यायालीन प्रकरण समाप्त करने की कार्यवाही न करने अथवा उसमें हिला हवाला' करने की दशा में यह राजीनामा स्वमेंव निरस्त माना जावेगा एवं शून्यवत होगा और संबंधित पक्ष न्यायलीन कार्यवाही पुर्नरजीवित कर आगे कार्यवाही हेतु अधिकृ त होगा।"

6. The larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian

Singh vs. State of Punjaband another, reported (2012) 10

SCC 303 has observed thus:-

"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.

7. In case of Narinder Singh & ors vs. State of Punjab and

others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed as under:-

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves.

However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal

proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, 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.

(V) 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.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed

under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) 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. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is

almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

8. In case of Ramgopal vs. State of MP, reported in (2022) 9

SCC 931, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan. "

9. This petition is filed against the order of revisional Court

whereby the revisional Court while setting aside the order of

learned Magistrate of dismissing the complaint, directed to

proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

10. The complaint case was filed for proceeding against non-

applicant therein / petitioner herein for commission of offence

under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC on

the ground that non-applicant has sold his part of the land of

Khasra No.1003/1 by impersonating. Sale deed executed is

forged and fabricated.

11.After filing of this petition, settlement was arrived at between

the parties on 27.6.2025 and written settlement deed was

executed between them. This settlement deed was brought

on record by respondent No.1 along with reply stating that he

is having no objection in quashing of criminal proceedings

initiated against petitioner.

12. In the above facts of the case, the question that arises for

consideration is whether this Court in exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') can pass order having effect

of quashing of criminal case pending before learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur. Section 528 of BNSS is pari

materia to the provision of Section 482 of CrPC (repealed).

The powers under Section 528 of BNSS are wide and it is to

be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court and to

secure ends of justice, subject to parameters as envisaged by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Harayana vs

Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

13. Recently, in case of Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State Of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down four steps for

exercising inherent jurisdiction as provided in Section 482 of

CrPC, now Section 528 of BNSS, which are as follows:-

"28. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the

accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has prosecution/complainant;

not been and/or the refuted material by is the such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?"

It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in said

decision that if answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,

judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to

quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested

in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,

besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious

court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such

a trial (as well as, proceeding arising therefrom) specially

when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the

conviction of the accused.

14.In the case at hand, at the initial stage of proceeding in

complaint case pending before the learned Magistrate, the

parties entered into settlement and the complainant does not

want to proceed further with the complaint in view of

settlement deed executed between the parties. Before this

Court also, learned counsel for respondent No.1 reiterated

terms of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and

respondent No.1.

15.Considering entirety of the facts of the case; the settlement

arrived between the parties mentioning that complainant will

withdraw the complaint case, in order to secure the ends of

justice, the impugned order of revisional Court directing to