Allegations Of Demand For Illegal Gratification Against Govt Servant Carry Wider Ramifications: Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Compromise Application

The Petition before the High Court was filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 3(5) of BNS on the ground that it was illegal and a gross abuse of the process of law.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra) has emphasized that offences involving corruption, abuse of official position, or moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the ground of settlement.”

Factual Background

The FIR in question was registered against the present petitioner and co-accused under Sections 61(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the second respondent. The complainant alleged that she is the widow of Late Shri Geshnarayan Kanwar, who was posted as a Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Borid, District Gariyaband. It was further alleged that the complainant met the present petitioner, who informed her that for preparation and clearance of the post-death pension case and for release of gratuity and other retiral dues, a sum of Rs 2 lakh was required to be paid. The complainant was compelled to issue a blank cheque.

According to the prosecution, it was subsequently discovered by the second respondent that instead of withdrawing Rs 2 lakh, an amount of Rs 2,80,000 had been fraudulently withdrawn from her account, and despite the payment, her post-death pension case and other retirement dues were not cleared. On the basis of the allegations, the FIR came to be registered.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the second respondent had filed an application under Section 359(2)(8) of the BNSS, asserting that the dispute with the petitioner had been amicably settled. However, the Bench stated, “...at this stage, this Court is not inclined to accept such a prayer.”

“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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has unequivocally 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", the Bench mentioned.

The Bench considered the fact that the allegations against the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude under the BNSS, and the offences were not private in nature. The Bench found that no written compromise was entered between the parties, and further, in an identically situated case, the petition preferred by the co-accused had already been dismissed by the High Court.

Thus, holding that no case was made out for quashing of the FIR, the Bench rejected the compromise application and dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Khorbahara Dhruw v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:46114-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Renu Kochar, Rahil Arun Kochar

Respondent: Panel Lawyer Shailendra Sharma, Advocate Leekesh Kuma

Click here to read/download Order