The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the principles guiding the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, particularly in cases with civil character or arising from commercial transactions or family disputes.

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. (Oral):

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 0123/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on 29th May, 2014 on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.

2. Issue notice. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person, and are identified by IO/ SI Ram Kumar, Police Station Parliament Street.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant alleging violation of certain terms of agreement entered into between the parties towards sale and purchase of properties. It is further alleged that the petitioner had cheated the complainant, inter alia, by fabricating documents. Thereafter, the parties are stated to have arrived at a settlement vide settlement deed dated 29th July, 2014.

5. On 8th September, 2014, counsel for the petitioner had handed over a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 2nd September, 2014 bearing No. 612427 drawn on State Bank of India to the complainant in Court, as the final instalment towards reimbursement of the complainant’s principal. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to make a reasonable offer of compensation towards interest and costs to the complainant. To this end, the petitioner has today handed over a banker's cheque drawn on State Bank of India bearing No.612627 dated 15th September, 2014 in the sum of Rs.8,91,698/- towards simple interest calculated at 8% per annum from 7th February, 2012 to 29th July, 2014, along with proof of payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.99077/- on the said amount which has been duly deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of India. In addition, the petitioner has today also handed over a bankers cheque for Rs.2,25,000/-bearing No.612752 dated 25th September, 2014 drawn on State Bank of India along with proof of deposit of Rs.25,000/- as TDS.

6. With the receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the complainant states that nothing further is due to him and that he has no further grievance with the petitioner. He further states that he is no longer interested in pursuing with the matter and that the same be closed.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances and since the petitioner has compensated the complainant to his satisfaction, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings.

8. Looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

And also in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum