Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police of Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44179-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2719 of 2025 Majhar Khan @ Mohammad Majhar Beg S/o Late Mohammad Sarwar Beg Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sohani Para, Gobra, Nawapara, Post Officer Rajim, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police of Police Station Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Bishakha Bai Kanwar W/o Late Gesnarayan Kanwar Aged About 50 Years R/o Patora, Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-applicant/State For Non-applicant No. 2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 01.09.2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.03 17:59:32 +0530 1. Heard Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. 2 Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for non-applicant No.1/State and Mr. Leekesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for non- applicant No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 181 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar District Gariyaband (C.G.) against the present petitioner for offence under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 3(5) of the BNS which is gross abuse of process of law, illegal and against the provision of law and thus, liable to quash, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2025, an FIR was registered against the present applicant and co-accused under Sections 61(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), on the basis of a written complaint made by non-applicant No. 2, namely, Smt. Bishakha Bai. It was alleged that she is the widow of Late Geshnarayan Kanwar, who was posted as Teacher in Government High Secondary School, Borid, District Gariyaband, and died on 08.02.2021. On 08.01.2024, the complainant met the applicant, who informed her that for preparation of post-death pension case and 3 for withdrawal of gratuity and other retiral dues, she would have to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for clearance, for which she had issued a blank cheque. It is the case of the prosecution that subsequently it was discovered by non-applicant No. 2 that instead of Rs. 2,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- had been withdrawn from her account and despite that, her post-death pension case and other retiral dues were not cleared. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 20.06.2025, non-applicant No. 2 lodged FIR vide Crime No. 181/2025 at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS, and subsequently during investigation, Sections 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the BNS were also added. The present applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail vide MCRCA No. 1103/2025, which was rejected on 28.07.2025. She further submits that since the parties have settled the dispute out of Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings, particularly when non-applicant No. 2, being the main aggrieved party, has no objection to quashing/compounding of the case. Hence, this petition has been filed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and contends that once an FIR has been registered, it must be investigated in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion. The fact that a compromise has taken place between the parties, it is argued, cannot by itself be a ground for 4 quashing the FIR, particularly when the allegations also involve offences of forgery which are non-compoundable. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2, however, supports the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that non-applicant No. 2 has filed I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the said application and quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR dated 20.06.2025 registered as Crime No. 181/2025 at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.), under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 3(5) of the BNS. It is stated that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and cordial relations are prevailing between them. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings, and in order to secure the ends of justice, quashing of the FIR has become necessary. Accordingly, non-applicant No. 2 seeks permission to compound the matter with the applicant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record, including the impugned FIR. 8. In the present case, non-applicant No. 2 has filed an application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, asserting that the dispute with the applicant has been amicably settled and expressing no objection to the quashing of the FIR. However, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to accept such a prayer. 5 9. It is a well-established principle that the power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has unequivocally held that where an FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, the investigation must be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion. Such proceedings cannot be prematurely halted merely because the parties have reached a compromise. 10. In the present matter, the investigation is still underway and the final report/charge-sheet has not yet been filed. At this stage, the Court cannot make any determination regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor can it quash the proceedings solely based on a compromise submitted by the complainant. 11. Further, from a perusal of the FIR reveals that Smt. Bishakha Bai Kanwar, widow of Late Shri Gesnarayan Kanwar, resident of Village Patora, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, has stated that her husband was employed as a teacher at Government Higher Secondary School, Borid, and passed away due to a heart attack on 08.02.2021. Following his demise, her son, Sunil Kanwar, was appointed as a Peon on compassionate grounds. For the purpose of 6 processing her late husband’s pension, she approached the Block Education Office (BEO), Fingeshwar, where she met the senior clerk, Shri Mohammad Majhar Khan. He allegedly informed her that payment of money was required for preparing the pension case and disbursing the benefits. When she declined, he purportedly stated that her pension case would not be processed without payment. Thereafter, in January 2024, an amount of Rs. 6,81,634/- was credited to her Union Bank, Fingeshwar account (A/c No. 373702120001534) from the Treasury, Gariyaband. Subsequently, Mohammad Majhar Khan and Shri Khorbahara Ram Dhruv (Clerk, Govt. HSS Borid) contacted her, claiming that the necessary work for her pension and gratuity had been completed and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. Trusting their representations, she handed over her cheque book to Shri Khorbahara Ram Dhruv and signed a blank cheque, as instructed. Later, she discovered that instead of Rs. 2,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- had been filled in and withdrawn fraudulently. Despite repeated follow-ups, her pension case remained unprocessed. Further inquiry at the BEO Office revealed that no payment was ever required to process pension cases. It became apparent that the said officials had cheated her by fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 2,80,000/- under the pretext of assisting with her pension. 12. The allegations against the applicant, a government servant, pertain to the demand for illegal gratification, misappropriation of retiral dues, and acts amounting to moral turpitude under the BNSS. Such offences are not private in nature; they carry wider ramifications for 7 society and impact public confidence in governance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra) has emphasized that offences involving corruption, abuse of official position, or moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the ground of settlement. 13. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the FIR at this stage. Accordingly, the compromise application, i.e., I.A. No. 2 of 2025 filed by non- applicant No. 2 under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, is hereby rejected, and the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan