Saurabh Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(CR) No. 235 of 2017 Saurabh Agrawal, S/o. Govind Ram Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Sahdevpali, Tahsil & District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2. S.S. Nair (Prasad), S/o. Keshavan Nair, Aged About 48 Years, Address Office at A-15/22, MIDC, Butibori, Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra State ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. B.M.Roy, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashish Shukla, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. Vimal Tondey, Advocate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 13.02.2018 Heard 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 19.05.2017 for the incident happened on 17.04.2017.

2.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner has allured for supply of certain materials and machines in the factory with a promise that production will go on by that. Subsequently, when it was found that nothing has been transpired, the FIR has been lodged which was registered as Crime No.273/2017 and the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. was registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now the compromise has been effected in between the parties and the counsel for the respondent also submits that the compromise has been effected, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

4.

Learned State counsel is also not able to dispute the fact that compromise has been effected and the compromise-deed Annexure P-2 is on record.

5.

Considering the facts and the submission of the parties and further taking into fact that the victim himself has stated that compromise has been affected, the FIR dated 19.05.2017 & Crime No.273/2017 is quashed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok