Chattisgarh High Court
Shahal Sha P vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.05.07
10:54:42 +0530
2025:CGHC:19313
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 834 of 2025
Shahal Sha P. S/o Shahul Hameed P. Aged About 26 Years R/o Paravati House,
Thuvvur, Police Station- Karuvarakundu, District- Malappuram ( Kerala ).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur,
District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ).
2 - Rahul Jain S/o Shri Rikhab Chand Jain Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 181,
Durga Chowk, Bal Govind Chowk Road, Ward No. 37, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And
District- Rajnandgaon, ( C.G. ).
---- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms Pragya Shrivastava, Dy GA For Complainant : Shri Deepak Choubey, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 29.04.2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS, 2023") against the order dated 17-01-2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 7137/2024, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 320 and 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.")/ Section 359 of the BNSS, 2023.
Crmp 834 of 2025 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 365/2024 registered at Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, for the offence under Section 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNS, 2023") and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short "IT Act, 2000"). Charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court and the petitioner/accused is facing trial of the case in Criminal Case No. 7137/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the charges under Sections 318(4), 336, 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2000.
3. As per allegation of the FIR, as well as the charge-sheet, the complainant Rahul Jain (Respondent No. 2) has made a written complaint to the Police that he connected with WhatsApp chat group "Friends of Wealth 81" on 12-06-2024 through website link "https www- triponfinance.com", who engaged in investment in stock market in view to higher return of their investment. The group admin, Ram Baldev has engaged in analysis of the stock market and gave information through WhatsApp to the other members of the group. On 26-07-2024, on the request of another group admin, Lalita, the complainant got registered himself and a user ID has been provided to him i.e.7999631416. After opening of the account in the website, he was asked to deposit the amount for trading in the stock market, for which he opened his bank account No. 20100030057980, 20100028374626, 2010002826703 and 20100029687810 at Bandhan Bank, account No. 484821564 at Kotak Crmp 834 of 2025 3 Mahindra Bank, account No. 101410586922 at IBFC Bank, and account No. 3467029330648851 at Jana Small Finance Bank, and deposited total Rs. 3,40,95,000/-. During the investigation, it was found that the bank account No. 2010002826703 is opened in the name of Sky Tour and Travel, Lucknow (UP) in which the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,46,30,000/- on 08-08-2024 to 09-08-2024 from the bank account of his sister Prachi Jain through RTGS. Out of the said amount, the amount of Rs. 7,30,000/- was transferred in the bank account of one Mohd. Rizil having bank account No. 924010015541558, running at Axis Bank. The said Rs. 7,30,000/- has been divided into many portions and withdrawn from the Pandikadu area of District Mallapuram (Kerala) through ATM card. There were numerous transactions in and from the said bank account No. 924010015541558 with various other bank accounts of Mohd. Sahal Sha P., Mohd. Suhail, Mohd. Zamreen Fatima T., Mohd. Shabeel Sha P., Mohd. Rizil NT, Abdul Sathar. When the police tried to catch them at their location, they fled away. Only the present accused/petitioner Shahal Sha P. could be arrested, and then he, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he, in collusion with other bank account holders, allured the investors and obtained money from them in his bank account and the bank of his relatives. From the present petitioner/accused, his ATM card, bank passbook, etc. have been seized, and he has been arrested on 10-09-2024. During the investigation, it is also discovered that after the present incident, the group admin Lalita again sent a bank account No. 20100030067663 of Bandhan Bank in Crmp 834 of 2025 4 WhatsApp to the complainant for trading from the mobile No. 8427681539. When the police inquired the said transaction, it reveals that the account holder Ranjeet Singh having conspiracy with other accused persons Smt. Snehil Dubey (Bank employee) and Rajendra Uike have used the bank account to cheat the complainant and others. They have also been arrested and their memorandum statement have also been recorded and they have been released after executing an affidavit under Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023. It is also found during investigation that the crime is organized by the accused persons after conspiracy of other co-accused persons which is committed and to be committed through bank accounts and mobile numbers, and spread up their network in various states like West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Kerala, Punjab, Gujrat, Telangana, Chhattisgarh and throughout the country and the investigation with respect to the other absconding accused persons and their mobile numbers, fake trading App etc. is pending, the charge sheet was filed against the arrested accused persons and the investigation is still pending for other accused persons who are still absconding.
4. The charge against the petitioner/accused has been framed, and the trial of the case proceeded for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As per the documents annexed with the petition, two witnesses have been examined till 28-02-2025, i.e. P.W. 1 Rahul Jain (complainant) and P.W. 2 Prachi Jain. The complainant Rahul Jain was initially examined on 15-01-2025; thereafter, he was partly cross-
Crmp 834 of 2025 5 examined on the same day and ultimately, his cross-examination was completed on 28-02-2025 and P.W. 2 Prachi Jain was also examined and cross-examined on 28-02-2025.
5. On 17-01-2025, two applications under Section 320 of Cr.P.C./Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 have been jointly filed by the petitioner/accused and the complainant for permission to compound the offence and to close the proceeding against the petitioner/accused on the basis of the compromise between the parties. In the application, the parties have submitted that they have settled their dispute and now the complainant does not want to prosecute his complaint any further, and the offence may be compounded.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the parties on 17-01-2025 itself by saying that the other offences of 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 is non- compoundable and the offence of Section 66 of the IT Act is also non- compoundable in view of the provisions of Section 77-A of the IT Act. Hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the complainant and the petitioner/accused have entered into a compromise and the offence of Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 is compoundable and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have compounded the offence, but the application is rejected. He would further submit that in view of the compromise between the parties, there is no Crmp 834 of 2025 6 possibility of his conviction and therefore, the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner/accused is an abuse of process of law as well as the court. The petitioner is in jail since 10-09-2024, and even after compromise in the matter, he is in jail. Therefore, the compromise between parties may be considered, and the proceedings of the criminal case pending against the petitioner/accused may be dropped, and he be acquitted from the offence.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/State would oppose the prayer made by the petitioner/accused and would submit that there is allegation of organized crime against the petitioner/accused and he along with other co-accused persons conspired together and to cheat the various persons, spread up their network throughout the country and collected crores of rupees from the persons and various other accused persons including the relatives of the present petitioner/accused are still absconding and investigation is continued. It is a big scam in which a huge stake of money is involved, which affects the economy of the country. The manner in which the offence is committed by the petitioner/accused, and other accused persons in the name of stock trading, the compromise cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, the other offences are also charged, which are not compoundable. The petitioner/accused and the complainant have not disclosed the terms and conditions of the compromise so that its genuineness could be verified. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation against the petitioner/accused and the relevant provisions of law, the Crmp 834 of 2025 7 learned trial court has rightly rejected the application, which needs no interference.
9. The Respondent No. 2 made his appearance Suo-moto through his counsel and submits that he has no objection in dropping the proceeding of the criminal case against the petitioner/accused as he has compromised the matter.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the material annexed to the petition, and gone through the case diary, which this court called vide order dated 21-04-2025.
11. From perusal of the impugned order dated 17-01-2025, it reflects that the petitioner/accused is charged for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2000. Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 is compoundable with the leave of the court as provided under Section 359 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 {Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.}, and the offences of Section 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 are not compoundable. Likewise, there are restrictions to compound the offence under the IT Act, 2000, as provided under Section 77-A of the IT Act, 2000. Section 77-A of the IT Act is being quoted here for quick reference:
77A Compounding of offences - A court of competent jurisdiction may compound offences, other than offences for which the punishment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years has been provided, under this Act: Provided that the court shall not compound Crmp 834 of 2025 8 such offence where the accused is, by reason of his previous conviction, liable to either enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind:Provided further that the court shall not compound any offence where such offence affects the socio economic conditions of the country or has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman. (2) The person accused of an offence under this Act may file an application for compounding in the court in which offence is pending for trial and the provisions of sections 265B and 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply.
12. When the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is made compoundable with the leave of the court, the court has to see the genuineness of the terms of the compromise before permitting the parties to compound the offence. The learned trial court has considered that the allegation against the present petitioner/accused is that he, along with other co-accused persons, prepared a fake trading App through the communication system, proposed himself to be the admin of "Wealth-41"
group, sent the website link of https www.triponfinance.com, and got deposited huge amount of Rs. 3,40,95,000/- through various bank accounts and cheated him. It is an organized crime committed by the petitioner/accused, and some of the accused persons, including the relatives of the petitioner/accused, are still absconding. The nature of the offence as alleged against the appellant does affect the national economy and the public at large. From the detailed investigation, there may be many other persons found involved in the offence, and the impact Crmp 834 of 2025 9 of the offence may be bigger than it appears. The other offences are non- compoundable offences.
13. Further, from perusal of the application filed by the parties before the learned trial court, it does not disclose the terms and conditions of the compromise so that its validity can be examined. It is only mentioned that the parties have settled the dispute and compromised the matter. In such a serious matter, only by saying that they have entered into a compromise would not suffice to permit the petitioner/accused and the complainant to compound the offence, particularly in such a serious offence.
14. From perusal of the provisions of Section 77-A of the IT Act, 2000, it reveals that the offence cannot be compounded, if the offence affects the socio-economic conditions of the country. As has been observed in the present case by the trial Court that the impact of the offence does affect the economy of the country and the public at large, non-granting of leave to compound the offence is fully justified.
15. Further, in the matter of "Bankat and Others v. State of Maharashtra" 2005 (1) SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 11 that:-
"11. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent requires to be accepted. For compounding of the offences punishable under the IPC, a complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences Crmp 834 of 2025 10 mentioned in the Table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in column 3 of the said Table. Further, sub- section (2) provides that the offences mentioned in the Table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section". In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by Table 1 or Table 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under the IPC could not be compounded."
16. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly exercised its discretion by not granting leave to the petitioner/accused and complainant to compound the offence in view of the gravity and impact of the said offence, as well as its non-compoundable nature. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference in the petition.
17. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma