Jal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.0032 dated 18.01.2018 under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. lodged at P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar, Uttarakhandand and further commanding and directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection to the impugned F.I.R. dated 18.10.2018 during the pendency of the case on the ground that parties have amicably settled the dispute.

A compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant and respondent no.3. Petitioner Jal Singh is present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate and respondent no.3 Yashpal is also present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate.

Petitioner Jal Singh states before the Court that he has refunded the money to respondent no.3. He had delayed payment, therefore, FIR was lodged.

Respondent no.3 Yashpal states that he has received the money and the matter has been settled amicably and he does not want to proceed further in the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed but cognizance has not been taken.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.3 both would argue that the dispute between the parties is definitely civil in nature. Parties have already settled their dispute amicably. Now, continuance of any criminal proceedings would definitely be non productive and would not yield any result to meet ends of justice. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Court, interalia, held as under:

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.............................. 8. As stated, dispute between the parties relates to money. Parties have already settled their dispute amicably. In fact, if the trial proceeds now, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It would not secure the ends of justice. In fact, interest of justice demands that the criminal case is put to an end. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since parties have amicably settled their dispute, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.0032 dated 18.01.2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar is hereby quashed.

Compounding Application No. 3980 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.