Janardan vs Anurag & Anr.

Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

Mr. Amin A. Khan, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant no.1/ complainant.

Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant no.2/State.

By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 85/2025 dated 09.03.2025 registered with Police Station, Imamwada, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

i] The applicant is engaged in private business. In the year 2021, the complainant became acquainted with one Krushna Rajput through Facebook. Through him, the complainant came to know that the applicant was engaged in an online business namely QNET and was earning commission by selling its products. The complainant also expressed his readiness and willingness to undertake the business being carried on by the applicant. During one of the Zoom meetings, the complainant came to know that the person known to him as Krushna Rajput was, in fact, Janardhan Shyamsunder Singh. Thereafter, the applicant called the complainant to various places for interviews and training. Subsequently, the applicant demanded money from the complainant for reserving the dealership in respect of the online business. Accordingly, the complainant, from time to time, transferred a total amount of Rs.2,76,600/- online into the bank account of the applicant.

ii] During a seminar held at Jaipur, the complainant came to know that the applicant was not engaged in the business of selling products, but in fact, he was operating a block chain network business, wherein he was required to connect other persons to the network. The complainant then realized that the applicant had deceived him by making false representations and had obtained money from him on such representations. The complainant thereafter demanded the amount paid by him; however, the applicant avoided to return the same. Consequently, the complainant alleged that he had been cheated by the applicant. On these allegations, the report was lodged by the complainant on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offence.

Heard Mr. Mohd. N. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Amin A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.1/ complainant and Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.2/State. Though, the notice is yet to be issued to the non-applicants in this matter, non-applicant no.1/complainant suo-motu appears in person through his counsel.

Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a joint affidavit cum declaration of the parties stating that the dispute between the complainant and the applicant has been settled out of the Court. The complainant has stated in the joint affidavit that he has received Rs.1,76,000/- from the applicant towards full and final settlement. He has further stated that he has no grievance against the applicant and has given unconditional consent for quashing the FIR. He does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicant and has no objection if the FIR against the applicant is quashed.

The complainant is present in-person before the Court today. He is duly identified by his counsel. On an inquiry with the complainant, he has reiterated the facts stated in the joint affidavit and admitted to have executed the joint affidavit.

With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed in para 29.4 as under :

The dispute is of a private nature. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. It appears that part of the amount has been received by the complainant and he is satisfied with the same. The complainant and the applicant in order to maintain good relationship have settled the dispute out of the Court. Even otherwise, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is a compoundable offence. Considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. Therefore, a case is made out for exercising inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (old Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.) to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order :

The Criminal Application is allowed.

First Information Report bearing No. 85/2025 dated 09.03.2025 registered with Police Station, Imamwada, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

The application stands disposed of in the above terms.