Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
M/s Suryakant Chitlangiya and Sons – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1862 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, BRIJMOHAN Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate
A mutual settlement between the parties does not warrant quashing of FIR in the absence of formal documentation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409, 420 - Prayer to quash FIR - Petitioners involved in a dispute with respondent over non-delivery of goods after payment - Settlement reached between parties without formal compromise filed - Court dismisses petition without interference. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
(B) Compromise - Absence of written compromise - Court indicates petitioners have freedom to approach concerned authorities despite dismissal of petition. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
FIR registered due to non-delivery of TMT bars after transfer of significant funds - Petitioners allege complaint amicably resolved.
Findings of Court:
Lack of formal documentation of settlement; petition dismissed to allow for potential future action.
Issues: Validity of amicable settlement and absence of formal compromise document discussed.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutual agreement indicates breach addressed but absence of documentation limits court intervention at this stage.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments presented by petitioners and respondents (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of allegations and compromise (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on the case (Para 7 , 8) |
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
17.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. Harsh Verma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash FIR No. 0419 of 2018 (Annexure P/1), dated 16.10.2018, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh under Sections 120-B , 34, 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4, Jaydev Guha, is the proprietor of M/s Beena Engineering, operating at Plot No. 22, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, District Durg, engaged in fabrication and machining work. On 16.11.2016, respondent No. 4 placed an order for approximately 85 tons of TMT bars with the petitioners, facilitated by petitioner No. 3, Mohit Somani, who assured supply at a lower-than-market price, including transportation and loading/unloading costs. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 transferred Rs.23,70,000/- via RTGS on 16.11.2016 to the account of M/s Suryakant Chitlangiya Sons and issued four blank cheques (Cheque Nos. 001215, 001216, 001217 and 001218) to the petitioners, with instructions to encash them post-delivery. Additional, Rs. 25,000/- was paid via NEFT for transportation costs.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners allegedly failed to deliver the TMT bars and did not return the blank cheques or refund the amount, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0419 of 2018 on 16.10.2018 at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, under Sections 120-B , 34, 406 and 420 of the IPC , pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have since resolved their dispute amicably. A compromise has been reached, and an application under Sections 359(2) and 359(8) of the BNS has been filed, supported by afÏdavits (Annexure P/2), confirming the settlement. He also states that till date no challan has been filed in the case. Hence, this petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 also endorses the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioners that whether he has filed any written compromise which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 4, to which learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has not filed any written compromise in the present petition and he states that only mutual settlement has arrived between the petitioners and respondent No. 4, who is complainant of the case, hence, we do not inclined to interfere in the present petition.
