The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement, considering the nature of the offence and the timing of the settlement.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 1271/2014 registered at PS-Prashant Vihar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 IPC against the petitioner.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint made by respondent no. 1 / Preeti Jain. After investigation, Police filed the chargesheet. However, the charges are yet to be framed, meanwhile, the parties have settled the disputes and petitioner has compensated respondent no. 1 by paying Rs.60,000/-. Thus, respondent no.1 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that petitioner is a student of B.Com Ist year, present petition may be allowed.

3. Respondent no. 1 is personally present in the Court with her Counsel. She has been identified by the IO concerned. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 on instructions submits that matter has been settled between the parties and an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no. 1 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, she has no objection.

4. On the other hand, ld. APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that another case with similar modus operandi is pending against the petitioner and if the present petition is allowed, he may continue to commit the offence further. However, if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR mentioned above, heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioner.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court 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.”

6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the ma