Laxmi Chand @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.126/2013 of Police Station

Kudi Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at

between the parties.

In the impugned FIR, the respondent No.2- Mr. Rikhab Mehta S/o Late Shri Mohnaraj Mehta has alleged that a piece of land situated in Khasra

No.138 and 311/1 of Kudi Bhagtasani was purchased by his son Akash Mehta from the Khatedars in the year 1989 through a registered sale deed.Â

It is stated that his son Akash Mehta is residing in Dubai, however, when the complainant visited the land, he found that some persons are raising

construction on the said land and on enquiry he came to know that they have purchased the said land through a registered sale deed. On further

enquiry, he found that accused Babu Lal Meena had sold the said plot to some other persons on the basis of a forged power of attorney executed in

his favour by his son Akash Mehta. It is also alleged that the petitioner â€" Laxmi Chand and Vinod Sharma are the witnesses of the said power of

attorney.Â

The investigation into the impugned FIR is going on, however, in the meantime the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have arrived at a compromise

and now the petitioners have filed these criminal misc. petitions for quashing of impugned FIR on the basis of said compromise.  The police have

also verified the said compromise, however, refused to close the case on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties cannot be

relied upon for closing of the case as from the evidence collected during the course of the investigation, prima facie involvement of the petitioners in

the commission of crime is established.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as a matter of fact, Laxmi Chand and complainant Rikhab Mehta are the real brothers and

Laxmi Chand has got prepared the said power of attorney of son of the complainant Akash Mehta in favour of Babu Lal Meena with the consent of

the complainant and his son but later on when some family disputes arose between the parties the impugned FIR has been lodged.Â

It is contended that now the family dispute between the petitioner â€" Laxmi Chand and the complainant â€" Rikhab Mehta has been settled by way

of compromise and therefore, now the respondent No.2 â€" Rikhab Mehta does not want to press the charges levelled by him against the petitioners

and on the basis of this only, the impugned FIR be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has also asserted that now the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled by him in the impugned FIR against the petitioners.

In the present case, from the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.2, it appears that alleged power of

attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner â€" Babu Lal Meena with the consent of the complainant and the son of the respondent No.2,

however, later on, on account of some family dispute, Rikhab Mehta has lodged an FIR knowing that his son is not the signatory to the power of

attorney.

Now the family dispute between the petitioner â€" Laxmi Chand and the complainant- Rikhab Mehta has amicably been settled on the basis of

compromise, therefore, it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioners before the concerned court as there is all possibility

that the complainant and other prosecution witnesses may not support the prosecution story.

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€​

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute,

there is no possibility of accusedpetitioners being convicted in the case pending against them.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case,

wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and the FIR No.126/2013 of Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.