Deepak Goyal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.335/2017 dated

01.10.2017 of Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

In the instant case the respondent No.2 lodged the FIR No.335/2017 at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh against the petitioner for the

aforesaid offences.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under Sections 420, 467,

468, 471 and 120-B IPC are pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have

compromised the matter and resolved the dispute between them amicably.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties the impugned FIR for the

aforesaid offences against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has conceded that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and petitioner has already been settled amicably

and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 16.04.2018, compromise arrived at between the parties, has been verified by the Investigating Officer,

who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the factual report dated 09.07.2018 of this effect has been submitted by

learned Public Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

It is admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled amicably and the same has been verified by the Investigating Officer.

Today, also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has categorically submitted that the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations

levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties.

 The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SCâ€"426, has

held as below:-

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding

or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the

guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to

quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the

facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be

fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and

have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for

quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on

different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in

nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because

of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put

accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete

settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of

justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite

settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to

an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding.â€​

It is noticed that dispute between the parties was in relation to the ancestral property. The respondent No.2 has alleged that the when petitioner

applied for patta of plot in question, then he came to know that the accused persons have prepared forged documents by putting fake signature of

Lichi Ram showing that the same plot was sold to one Hemraj by putting fake signature of one Balkishan and the plot in question has been handed

over by one Hemraj to one Jagdish Rai and Jagdish Rai has sold the plot in question to the petitioner. It seems that the dispute was in relation to

ancestral property, which has been now settled between the parties.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the dispute between the parties has already been settled

amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR for the aforesaid offences, it is a fit case

wherein the impugned FIR against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Â

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances noted above, this criminal

misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.335/2017 dated 01.10.2017 of Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.