On September 22, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that criminal cases involving the demand for illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds, particularly those related to pension and gratuity release, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized that such offenses are not private in nature but have wider ramifications for society and, therefore, cannot be settled privately.
Background of the Case
The case involved a government clerk (the petitioner) and the widow of a deceased government teacher (the complainant). The petitioner, 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 ₹2,00,000 was required for this purpose. Consequently, the complainant issued a blank cheque to them.
However, it was later discovered that instead of ₹2,00,000, a sum of ₹2,80,000 was fraudulently withdrawn from her bank account. Despite this payment, her pension case was not processed. Upon further inquiry, the complainant found that no such payment was ever required to process pension cases, leading her to conclude that the petitioner had cheated her.
Legal Proceedings
An FIR was registered on June 20, 2025, 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 Act. Later, Sections 338, 336(3), and 340(2) were added during the investigation.
The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application, which was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, contending that the parties had amicably settled the dispute outside the court. He argued that the complainant had no objection to quashing or compounding the criminal case and that continuing the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose in light of the settlement and the cordial relations now prevailing between them.
Court's Ruling
The High Court, however, rejected the petitioner's plea, stating that offenses involving illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds are serious in nature and have broader societal implications. The Court held that such offenses cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Bench emphasized that allowing such quashing would undermine the seriousness of the offense and the public interest involved.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's stance on the seriousness of offenses related to illegal gratification and misappropriation of funds, especially in public service matters. It reaffirms that such offenses cannot be settled privately and must be addressed through due legal processes to uphold public trust and accountability in governmental functions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.