Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR against a government clerk accused of fraudulently withdrawing pension-related funds. The allegations, registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, included cheating, forgery, and abuse of official position. The Bench emphasized that offences involving illegal gratification and misappropriation of public funds, being matters of moral turpitude with broader societal impact, cannot be treated as private disputes and therefore cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The case arose from an FIR registered on 20.06.2025 at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, against petitioner Khorbahara Dhruw and others under Sections 318(4), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, additional charges under Sections 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the BNS were included. The complaint was lodged by respondent no. 2, Bishakha Bai Kanwar, widow of Late Gesnarayan Kanwar, who was employed as a teacher at Government Higher Secondary School, Borid, and passed away on 08.02.2021.

Also Read: Unutilised Consolidation Land to Revert to Proprietors | Supreme Court Dismisses Haryana Govt. Appeal under Section 2(g)(6) Punjab Village Common Lands Act

According to the complainant, she was informed by the petitioner in January 2024 that a payment of ₹2,00,000 was required to process her pension and retiral benefits. She alleged that she was compelled to issue a blank cheque, which later resulted in a fraudulent withdrawal of ₹2,80,000 from her account, while her pension dues remained unsettled. It was further alleged that no such payment was required and that the petitioner, along with another official, had misappropriated funds under the pretext of assisting with the pension case.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the dispute had been settled out of court and that the complainant had no objection to compounding the matter. Respondent no. 2 supported the petitioner’s submission, filing an application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS. The State opposed the plea, submitting that once an FIR is registered, investigation must proceed to its logical conclusion, particularly where allegations involve non-compoundable offences such as forgery.

The Court recorded: “In the present case, respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, asserting that the dispute with the petitioner 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.”

The Court observed: “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 Court referred to Supreme Court precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315), and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan ((2019) 5 SCC 688).

The judgment stated: “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.”

On the stage of proceedings, the Court recorded: “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.”

The Court also noted the absence of any formal settlement document: “Further, no written compromise has been entered between the parties.”

Addressing the seriousness of the charges, the Bench 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.”

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court | Petition to Quash FIR Against Logistics Employees Dismissed | Safe-Harbour Under IT Act No Shield at Threshold for Delivery of Prohibited Knives

On precedential consistency, the Court stated: “Further, perusal of the records goes to show that no written compromise has been entered between the parties and further, in an identically situated case, the petition i.e. CRMP No. 2719 of 2025 preferred by co-accused, namely, Majhar Khan @ Mohammad Majhar has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025.”

The Bench issued the following directive: “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 Court ordered: “The compromise application, i.e., I.A. No. 2 of 2025 filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, is hereby rejected, and the petition is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Renu Kochar on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Khorbahara Dhruw v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:46114-DB
Case Number: CRMP No. 2826 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru