( 1 ) CHARAN Singh Sharma by this petition had sought the dropping of the investigation conducted thereon and quashing of the FIR No. 71/92 under Section 420/465/467/471/120-B LP. C. of Police Station, Malviya Nagar. New Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings, Ms. Neelam Grover appearing for the petitioner brought on record the fact that the parties in the civil suit have entered into - a compromise and on account of that settlement between the parties the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 24th March, 1992. According to her this criminal case has. arisen out of the civil transaction entered into between the parties. Since in the civil suit, the compromise had been arrived at, nothing survives in this case, and therefore the FIR be quashed. Mr. Javed Hashmi, appearing for respondent No. 2, Balraj Arya, admilted the position that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties before the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 774/90. He has no objection if the FIR is quashed and the proceedings are dropped.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the position as emerges from the above contention of the parties, it will be relevant to note in short the facts giving rise to the present complaint.

( 3 ) IN nutshell the case which gave rise to the lodging of this FIR is that lag Ram Arya. father of respondent No. 2 had executed a pronote and a receipt for Rs. 60,000. 00 in favour of one Shri Jagdish Chander Sharma. This receipt was executed somewhere in May, 1985. Jag Ram Arya was murdered on 4th July, 1985 and thus the loan remained unpaid. Jagdeesh Chand Sharma filed a suit for recovery and in that impleaded the legal heirs of late Jag Ram Arya as defendants. After the service of the summons in the said suit, the respondent No. 2 son of the. deceased Jag Ram Arya filed a complaint before ACMM alleging therein that the said documents were forged. His father s signatures have been forged on the pronte as well as on the receipt and that his signatures as well as the signatures of respondent No. 3 had also been fabricated. Therefore, he wanted that a case under Section 420/468/471/197/198 read with Section 120-B be initiated against Jagdeesh Chand Sharma. The magistrate took the cognizance on the said complaint and sent the same to S. H. O. Police Station, Malviya Nagar for registration of a case and investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. On receipt of that complaint, F. I. R. No-71/92 was registered and investigation commenced. It was at this stage that the present petition was filed. But as pointed out above now in the civil suit, the parties have settled their dispute and on account of the compromise the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn.

( 4 ) MS. Neelam Grover appearing for the petitioner contends that the F. I. R. is liable to be quashed because of the compromise and even otherwise the present F. I. R. No. 71/92 pertained to the same dispute regarding the repayment of loan based on the promissory note as well as on the receipt which was the matter to be tried by Civil Court. The lodging of the F. I. R. on the basis of the complaint made by defendant No. 2 amounted to over reaching the jurisdiction of the Civil Court through the intervention of the police machinery. Sofar as the argument of Ms. Neelam Grover that the complainant tried to over reach the jurisdiction - of the Civil Court, I find force in this submission of Ms. Grover. On account of the pendency of the civil suit No. 774/90 filed before the District Judge, Delhi inter parties, I would only say that the respondent No. 2 Balraj Arya has tried to over reach the jurisdiction of the civil court through the intervention of the police machinery and that there could not be still bigger case of abuse of criminal process warranting quashing of First Information Report No. 71/92.

( 5 ) THAT apart, now in view of the subsequent events which have arisen after the filing of this petition, that is the compromise having been arrived at, I see no