Shivbahadur Pal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, Shivbahadur Pal, Afroj Ahmad, and Dilip Kumar, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings. These proceedings, bearing Criminal Case No. 176/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, involve charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleges that the complainant, Mohammad Jiyaul Haque Ashrafi, was defrauded of Rs. 44,56,047/-. Initially, he was offered a loan by a lady claiming to be Lalita Sharma, and after depositing Rs. 18,199/- as insurance, he was asked to deposit further amounts towards process charges, GST, and taxes. The petitioners were arrested based on suspicion and a charge sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges, and the petitioners were later granted bail by the High Court. The present petition seeks to quash the entire proceedings.

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition. While acknowledging the amicable settlement and the compounding of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the Court considered the nature of the allegations. The Court noted that the petitioners allegedly took Rs. 20,00,000/- from the complainant in lieu of a loan and subsequently defrauded him of another Rs. 24,56,047/- by impersonating Crime Branch officials. The Court found this to be a prima facie case of cheating, involving economic crime. Therefore, despite the settlement regarding one section, the Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the criminal proceedings for the remaining offences. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the grounds of amicable settlement between the parties, considering that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC has been compounded. The petitioners argued that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, and they have returned a portion of the amount to the complainant. They further submitted that the complainant had filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial court, leading to the compounding of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. However, they acknowledged that other offences remain. The complainant (respondent No. 2) contended that while a compromise was entered into, and a cheque was issued by the petitioners, the cheque bounced, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The complainant also explained that initially, Rs. 20,00,000/- was taken for a loan, and subsequently, the petitioners introduced themselves as Crime Branch officials and obtained the remaining Rs. 24,56,047/-.