Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Sumant Kumar Agrasingh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 600 of 2020
For the Appellant: Mr. Sushobhit Singh
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Sakib Ahmed
For Respondent No. 2: Mr. P. Chetan Kumar
FIR under IPC and IT Act upheld despite reconciliation; court maintains trial's validity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Information Technology Act - Sections 66
(B) and 66
(D) - Quashing of FIR - Complaint alleging fraud in insurance product arrangements - The petitioner failed to fulfill obligations leading to complaint. Ongoing trial indicates sufficient evidence for charges. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction to Quash - The court maintains that withdrawal of charges does not negate the trial's initiation based on prima facie evidence. The FIR cannot be quashed despite the complainant's intention. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was lodged against the petitioner alleging fraud in insurance dealings, leading to an FIR under IPC and IT Act. Resolution between parties occurred after financial recovery.
Findings of Court:
The court found substantial progress in judicial proceedings, asserting that the trial court's cognizance requires adherence despite the complainant's withdrawal request.
Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed due to reconciliation efforts between the parties after charges were filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the completion of investigation and initiation of trial underscores the importance of maintaining judicial process over the parties' reconciliation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments on dismissal of fir based on resolution. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegations of cheating and failure to perform contractual obligations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on trial progression and evidence. (Para 7) |
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
20.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Subhobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: No. 1/State and Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for
2025.06.20 +0530 respondent No. 2.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 0187 of 2018 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged written complaint which was ultimately registered as an FIR for commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66 (B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act . It was alleged by the complainant that he is the agent of State Bank of India, Insurance Divison and his job profile involves distribution and selling of the insurance products of SBI to the interested customers and the complainant would then earn commission depending upon the numbers of policies sold by the complainant. It was further alleged that he received an anonymous call wherein the petitioner offered him a proposal that the petitioner would arrange customers for the Life Insurance Products sold by the complainant and that he would earn substantial amount of commission by selling insurance products to the prospective customers. Upon the proposal given by the petitioner, the complainant deposited a substantial amount in the account of company of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner further offered to arrange customers for the complainant by arranging camps in various establishments and that he would get more than 100 to 150 customers for purchase of Life Insurance Products.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the e time, the petitioner and his employer company failed to arrange customers for the complainant and ultimately the complainant lodged the FIR against the petitioner for his failure to arrange customers for the complainant for the purpose of Life Insurance Products. The petitioner failed in the performance of his obligation, and therefore, ultimately an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections
66(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act .
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation, the matter was amicably resolved between the parties, out of free will and consent in a most cordinal manner. The loss suffered by the complainant was recovered by him, and therefore, the complainant submitted his sworn afÏdavit before the Police authorities i.e. respondent No. 1 wherein he declared his intention that he does not want to press charges and wants to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the present case investigation has already been done and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the evidences already been recorded as well as the trial is in argument stage.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
