FIR for Corruption & Fraud Against Public Servant Not Quashable on Compromise, Especially During Investigation: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-10

FIR for Corruption Against Public Servant Can't Be Quashed on Compromise, Rules Chhattisgarh High Court

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - The High Court of Chhattisgarh has firmly ruled that an FIR registered against a public servant for serious offences like corruption, fraud, and moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant, particularly when the investigation is still in progress.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a petition filed by Khorbahara Dhruw, a clerk, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly defrauding a widow of Rs. 2,80,000 under the pretext of processing her deceased husband's pension.

Case Background

The case stems from a complaint filed by Smt. Bishakha Bai, the widow of a government school teacher. She alleged that the petitioner, Khorbahara Dhruw, and a co-accused, Mohammad Majhar Khan, both government clerks, demanded Rs. 2,00,000 to process her late husband's pension and other retiral benefits.

According to the FIR, the complainant was compelled to issue a blank cheque. She later discovered that the accused had fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 2,80,000 from her bank account, while her pension case remained unprocessed. Consequently, an FIR was registered at Police Station Fingeshwar under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including those related to cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.

Arguments in Court

The petitioner's counsel argued for quashing the FIR, stating that the parties had amicably settled the dispute out of court. The complainant (respondent No. 2) supported this plea, filing an application to compound the offences and stating that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Conversely, the State counsel vehemently opposed the petition. It was argued that a compromise cannot be a ground to quash an FIR for serious, non-compoundable offences like forgery and corruption. The State maintained that once a cognizable offence is disclosed, the investigation must proceed to its logical conclusion.

Court's Analysis and Precedents

The High Court underscored the limited and exceptional nature of its power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS (akin to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.). The bench relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan , which established that criminal proceedings should not be halted prematurely if the FIR discloses cognizable offences.

The Court drew a clear distinction between private disputes and offences with a wider societal impact. It observed:

"The allegations against the petitioner, 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 society and impact public confidence in governance."

The bench emphasized that offences involving corruption and abuse of official position cannot be quashed solely on the grounds of a settlement, as per the principles laid down in Laxmi Narayan (supra) .

Final Decision

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court rejected the compromise application and dismissed the plea to quash the FIR. The bench noted that the investigation was ongoing, no written compromise was on record, and a similar petition filed by the co-accused had already been dismissed.

The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the criminal justice system cannot be bypassed through private settlements in cases that undermine public trust and involve serious misconduct by public officials. The investigation into the allegations of corruption and fraud will now continue as per the law.