Pramod Khullar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR dated 29.03.2018 lodged by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC on the basis of which FIR No.0066 of 2018 is registered at Police Station-Raiwala, District Dehradun and further directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned FIR dated 29.03.2018.

In the instant case FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 of IPC was lodged on 29.03.2018 by respondent no.3 against the petitioner. According to the FIR, the petitioner and others represented M/s Ringing Bell Pvt. Ltd. Company for selling mobile phones at a very low cost and dishonestly induced the first informant to avail the distributorship and invest money into it, which first informant i.e. respondent no.3 did, but, thereafter the articles supplied by the petitioner's company were sub standard. The respondent no.3 incurred huge loss and for escaping the liability certain documents were forged by the petitioner. With these allegations, the FIR is lodged.

Today it is stated that the parties have entered into a compromise. A joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant and respondent no.3. Petitioner Pramod Khullar is present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate and respondent no.3 Praveen Goyal is also present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate.

Respondent no.3 and the petitioner have stated before the Court that they have amicably settled the dispute. This is a dispute relating to business transactions and parties have settled their dispute.

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........................................................

As stated, dispute between the parties relates to business. 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 dated 29.03.2018 registered as FIR No.66 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 506 IPC at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun is hereby quashed.

Compounding Application No.3408 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.