( 1 ) SHRI B. K. Sondhi by this petition has sought for the quashing of the FIR No. 480/99 registered under Sections 420/468/471, Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi. Quashing has been sought primarily on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. The terms of compromise were filed in Suit No. 1693/98 instituted by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner regarding the purchase of the farm house belonging to the petitioner and his son. The said suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi, registered as Suit No. 1693/98 titled as "tarun Pal Singh v. Jai Sondhi and Ors. " The cause of action pleaded in the suit was identical to the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 which culminated into the registration of FIR No. 480/99. During the pendency of that suit, the petitioner and the respondent filed complaints against each other. On the basis of their respective complaints two FIRs were registered. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No. 112/99 was registered and on the complaint of respondent No. 2 FIR No. 480/99 was registered. Now since the settlement has been arrived at between the parties whereby they jointly filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as I. A. No. 7932/99 and the compromise having been recorded by the learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court, therefore, petitioner has sought for the quashing of FIR No. 480/99, registered against him.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate his contentions briefly stated the facts, are that petitioner and his son Jai Sondhi were joint owners of Farm House known as Sondhi Farm House situated at Village Sant Bari, District Mehrauli, New Delhi. It was the version of respondent No. 2 that the said Farm House was sold by petitioner to him. Agreement to Sell and other documents were executed by the petitioner. The General Power of Attorney alleged to be executed by his son Jai Sondhi in favour of the petitioner was in fact forged. Thus petitioner tried to cheat the respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) PETITIONER on the other hand filed a complaint against the father of respondent No. 2 and other persons alleging therein that respondents forcibly entered his premises and under threat forced him to sign certain documents and fabricated General Power of Attorney purportedly to be executed by his son in his favour. Accordingly, on petitioner s complaint FIR No. 112/99 was registered against accused persons at Police Station Chitranjan Park, under Sections 452/506/43, Indian Penal Code. Whereas on the complaint of respondent No. 2 FIR No. 480/99 under Sections 420/468/471, Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Mehrauli, against the petitioner. As already pointed out above respondent No. 2 also filed a suit for specific performance in the High Court of Delhi. In the said suit, parties entered into a compromise. Compromise deed was filed in the Court. As per the terms of the deed of agreement arrived at between the parties, respondent No. 2 herein, plaintiff before learned Single Judge, had stated that he had no claims, right, title or interest in the property measuring 12 Bighas and 12 Biswas, comprising Khasra Nos. 991 (4-16), 992 (4-16) and 993 (3-0 ). That on the basis of the said agreement respondent No. 2 surrendered the possession of the property to the present petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise the suit was dismissed and the interim orders were vacated. One of the terms of the compromise was that parties would withdraw the civil and criminal litigation initiated against each other. In pursuance to the said term of the compromise, petitioner got his case registered as FIR No. 112/99 lodged by him against the father of respondent No. 2 and others quashed from this Court in Crl. Writ No. 766/99 titled as Ajit Singh Oberoi and Anr. v. State and Anr. , on 20th August, 1999.

( 4 ) IT is in this backdrop the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No. 480/99 lodged by responde