Disposed¶30

Sai Adityarath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2026CRMP/935/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR; Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023; Sections 318(4) and 3(5) B.N.S.; compromise during pending investigation; police report after verification by Investigating Officer; Superintendent of Police compliance; OLX online vehicle-sale cheating allegation; RTGS Rs.7,50,000/-; anticipatory bail rejected MCRCA No.369/2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; CRMP No. 935 of 2026; 2026:CGHC:15273-DB.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the compromise, if any, and to appear before the Investigating Officer along with the complainant, who shall file an appropriate police report before the Court concerned after verification; Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure compliance subject to there being no legal impediment. FIR not quashed. ¶30

Sai Adityarath Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 02.01.2026 (Crime No.04/2026, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja) registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023, in light of the alleged payment and compromise between the parties.

¶22

Court's answer

Observing that a compromise had taken place between the parties while the matter is still under investigation, the Court did not quash the FIR; it granted the petitioners liberty to file the compromise, if any, and to appear before the Investigating Officer along with the complainant, who shall file an appropriate police report before the Court concerned after verifying the same.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Superintendent of Police concerned shall ensure compliance of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice) — CRMP No. 935 of 2026 (decided 02-04-2026): Petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.04/2026 of P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja, registered under Sections 318(4)/3(5) B.N.S., 2023 on the allegation that the father-and-son petitioners obtained Rs.7,50,000/- by RTGS from the complainant pursuant to an OLX online vehicle-sale advertisement without delivering the vehicle or documents. Counsel stated the amount stood paid and a compromise was entered; anticipatory bail (MCRCA No.369/2026) had earlier been rejected on 10-03-2026. The Court disposed of the petition without quashing: since the matter is still under investigation and a compromise is claimed, the petitioners were given liberty to file the compromise and appear before the Investigating Officer with the complainant, who shall verify it and file an appropriate police report before the Court concerned; the Superintendent of Police concerned shall ensure compliance if there is no legal impediment.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed byMOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.04 15:22:18 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:15273-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 935 of 2026

¶7

1 - Sai Adityarath S/o Manas Ranjan Rath, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mani Colony, Panposh Post- Raurkela, District- Sundargarh Orrisa.

¶8

2 - Manas Ranjan Rath S/o Harihar Rath, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Mani Colony, Panposh Post- Raurkela, District- Sundargarh Orrisa.

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Harpreet Singh S/o Niranjan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Jaistambh Chowk, Bajarpara, Police Station and Tehsil- Sitapur DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

02-04-2026

¶18

1 . Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also

¶19

¶20

heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for StateRespondent No.1.

¶21

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief(s):

¶22

“a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR dated 02.01.2026 bearing Crime No.04/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶23

b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶24

3. As per the prosecution case, on the written complaint made by complainant Harpreet Singh FIR No.04/2026 has been registered at Police Station Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318(4) and 3(5) BNS against the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners, who are father and son, had offered to sell a vehicle bearing registration No.OD-02-CE-5228 to the complainant through online advertisement on OLX, pursuant to which

¶25

¶26

the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- through RTGS to the bank account of petitioner No.2. However, after receipt of the said amount, the accused persons neither transferred the vehicle nor its documents and as per the allegation made in the complaint when he enquired he came to know that the vehicle was sold to some other person.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have already paid the amount due to the complainant and they have entered into compromise.

¶28

5. On being pointed query made from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners have filed any anticipatory bail application or not, he states that the same was filed as MCRCA No.369/2026 which has been rejected vide order dated 10-03-2026.

¶29

6. It has been submitted that the compromise has taken place between the parties, in view of the same, as the matter is still under investigation, the petitioners are at liberty to file the compromise arrived, if any and to appear before the Investigating Officer along with the complainant, who shall file appropriate police report before the Court concerned after verifying the same. The Superintendent of Police concerned shall ensure the compliance of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶30

7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶32

Aadil

Sai Adityarath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Adityarath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinkee Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Bothra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dipti Agrawal Vs Sanjay Kumar Nachrani

Jagrit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puneshwar Kumar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Malha @ Monti Vs State of Chhattisgarh