FIR Can't Be Quashed On Basis Of Compromise In Cases Involving Illegal Gratuity Demands For Pension Release : Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was a government clerk and the complaint was the widow of a deceased government teacher. He along with another official approached the complainant under the pretext of assisting her with the processing and release of her late husband's post-death pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits. They informed her that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was required for this purpose. Therefore, the complainant issued a blank cheque to them.

It was subsequently discovered by the complainant that instead of Rs. 2,00,000, a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 was fraudulently withdrawn from her bank account. Despite this payment, her pension case was not processed. The complainant further inquired and found out that no such payment was ever required to process pension cases. Hence the petitioner had cheated her.

An FIR was registered on 20.06.2025 by the complainant at Police Station Fingeshwar, against the petitioner and a co-accused. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), and 3(5) of the BNS. Later sections 338, 336(3), and 340(2) were added during the investigation. The petitioner filed his anticipatory bail application which was rejected.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court. It was submitted that the complainant had no objection to the quashing or compounding of the criminal case. Further continuing with the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose in light of the settlement and the cordial relations now prevailing between them. It was further submitted that the complainant has filed a formal application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, seeking permission to compound the matter.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the State counsel that once an FIR has been registered, it must be investigated in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion. The mere fact that a compromise has taken place between the parties cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashing the FIR particularly when the allegations also involved the offences of forgery which are non compoundable.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan were relied upon by the court wherein it was held that 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, especially at a stage when the investigation is still underway and the final report has not been filed.

It was held by the court that the allegations against the petitioner who was a government servant, pertain to the demand for illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds, which are acts amounting to moral turpitude. Such offences are not private in nature but carry wider ramifications for society. It was held by the court that offences involving corruption, abuse of official position, or moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the ground of a settlement.

It was further held that no written compromise had been entered into between the parties. It was concluded by the court that no case for quashing the FIR was made out. Consequently, the compromise application filed by complainant under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS was rejected by the court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Khorbahara Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Case No. : CRMP No. 2826 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Renu Kochar on behalf of Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer and Leekesh Kumar, Advocate