Farid Khan vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 CrP.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 277 dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure-P. 1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 448 and 511 IPC and Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, which were added later on, at Police Station DLF Phase-II, District Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure-P. 2).

The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant-Sushil Daga on the allegations that respondent No. 2 has purchased residential house bearing No. 9 situated on Road No. V-34, measuring 264.04 Sq. meters having covered area of 38.16 sq. meters situated at DLF City, Phase-II Gurgaon from Sanjay Khanna vide registered sale deed bearing Vasika No. 1144 dated 11.4.2008. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners have forged and fabricated power of attorney, which was never executed by the sellers of above said property i.e. Sanjay Khanna and Nandita Khanna. Therefore, property dispute arose between the parties. Now with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, the parties have settled the dispute between themselves. Petitioner No. 1 has withdrawn the civil suit filed against respondent No. 2. A compromise has been entered into between the parties, which was reduced into writing on 10.3.2014.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, they were directed to appear before learned trial Court for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. After doing the needful, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon has sent her report dated 17.6.2014 submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion from any one and the same is genuine one. Complainant Sushil Daga and Smt. Kavita have stated that they have entered into a compromise with the accused persons and the said compromise has been entered into voluntarily and out of complete volition and they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from the Investigating Officer admits the factum of compromise and submits that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has held that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 CrP.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings in respect of criminal cases 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute even though they are not compoundable. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled and the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (supra), this petition is allowed and FIR No. 277 dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure-P. 1) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 448 and 511 IPC and Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, which were added later on, at Police Station DLF Phase-II, District Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.