High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.21 10:28:13 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:13294-DB NAFR CRMP No. 864 of 2023 Arun Goyanka S/o Ramavtar Goyanka Aged About 45 Years R/o H.N. 204, Gudhiyari Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Kotwali, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhinav Agrawal S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Krishna Vihar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 20.03.2025 1 Heard Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “3.1 allow the instant petition; 3.2 kindly allow the parties to compound the alleged offences; 3.3 graciously be pleased to quash the impugned F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 77/2022 dated 11/01/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali of District Raigarh (CG) and the consequential criminal proceeding, if any, in the interest of justice.” 3 Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case, are that, the petitioner and respondent No.2 both are engaged in business of Steel and known to each other. The petitioner is proprietor of a firm namely Parth Steel Corporation, Raipur, whereas respondent No.2 is proprietor of a firm namely Maa Trading Company, Raigarh. From 01.11.2021 to 02.12.2021, respondent No.2 is said to have supplied TMT Iron Bars to the firm of petitioner worth Rs.5,52,54,333/- (Five crore fifty-two lac fifty-four thousand three hundred and thirty rupees only), but the later has paid only Rs.4,16,20,128/- (Four crore sixteen lac twenty thousand one hundred and twenty-eight rupees only) and an amount of Rs.1,36,34,205/- (One crore thirty-six lac thirty-four thousand two hundred and five rupees only) is outstanding and has not been paid. Upon asking for payment of outstanding amount, the 3 petitioner made various excuses and kept avoiding the same. Hence, feeling to have been cheated, respondent No.2 is said to have submitted a written complaint before Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh for allegedly committing offence of cheating and misappropriation against the petitioner. Acting upon the said complaint, the Police of Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh has registered the impugned F.I.R. vide Crime No.77/2022 dated 11.01.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) against the petitioner. 4 In the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into an amicable settlement without any coercion or collusion and have decided to resolve all the disputes pending amongst them. The parties are no more interested to proceed with criminal proceedings. Since, the alleged offence is compoundable with permission of the Court, therefore, this petition is being preferred seeking permission of this Court to compound the alleged offence on the basis of voluntary and amicable settlement between them and further seeking quashment of the impugned FIR. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged offences are compoundable with permission of the Court under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., but the matter is still under investigation stage and challan has not yet been filed yet. He further submits that perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that 4 there is absolutely no serious allegation with regard to commission of the alleged offence so as to deny the permission to compound the alleged offence. On the contrary the allegations appear to be purely civil and commercial in nature. It has been contended that on 12.01.2022, the petitioner has paid amount of Rs.1,36,34,205/- (One crore thirty-six lac thirty-four thousand two hundred and five rupees only) to respondent No.2 through RTGS mode and has cleared all the outstanding dues, a copy of payment summery is filed and marked as Annexure P/2. It has been further contended that after receiving payment, respondent No.2 has voluntarily executed an agreement/satisfaction deed dated 12.01.2022 on a stamp paper expressing his unwillingness to prosecute the petitioner any more, which is filed and marked as Annexure P/3. It has been argued that the matter is in preliminary stage and challan has not been filed yet, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances continuation of the criminal proceedings in connection with Impugned FIR would be an abuse of process of law and would result in futility. It has been further argued that the alleged offence is compoundable with permission of the court, hence, there is no impediment in allowing the instant petition and quash the impugned FIR in larger interest of justice. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder 5 Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 to buttress his submissions. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 concurs the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have entered into a settlement and on that basis, they are seeking to quash the FIR registered vide Crime No.0077/2022 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 9 The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh (supra) has observed as follows :- “61. 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.: (1) 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 6 proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed…….. 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10 The law stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that in view to encourage genuine settlement between parties, the Courts should be less hesitant in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in quashing the case by an authority rendered in the matter of Narinder Singh (supra), holding as follows:- “29. 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 7 proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. 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. 29.2. 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. 29.3…….. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly 8 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. 29.6…….. 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. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed……...” 11 As per the settled law, there is a growing tendency in business circle to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law 9 remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect interests of lenders/creditors. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal proceeding should be deprecated and discouraged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri (supra) has observed as follows:- “8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 12 From perusal of the agreement/satisfaction deed dated 12.01.2022 on a stamp paper expressing his unwillingness to prosecute the petitioner any more, it appears that the petitioner 10 and respondent No.2 have already settled their dispute and compromised the matter outside the Court. 13 Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra), G. Sagar Suri (supra) and also taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR has emanated has been amicably settled by the parties by way of satisfaction deed, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioners in this matter. 14 In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.0077/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC is hereby quashed. 15 Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu