The court's decision was influenced by the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.

P.K.Bhasin, J:—

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 200/2000 dated 26th July, 2000 under Sections 406/419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered against them at Police Station Welcome at the instance of the complainant- respondent no.2, as well as their trial going on in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the said FIR.

2. The FIR sought to be quashed was registered at the instance of respondent no. 2, who is the sister of petitioner no. 3 and aunt of petitioner no. 2. She owned one residential property bearing no. E-1/74, Sector 11, Faridabad Model Town Scheme, Faridabad, (Haryana). The complainant alleged that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had forged a power of attorney purporting to be her power of attorney in favour of petitioner no.2 authorising him to sell the said property and on the basis of that forged power of attorney dated 31st March, 1993 sold the said plot.

3. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in Court against the three petitioners herein for their having committed offences punishable under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.

4. However, during the trial, the parties entered into a compromise vide Compromise Deed dated 9th July, 2012 with the intervention of the relatives and friends and as a consequence thereof the petitioners filed the present petition for the quashing of the criminal case against them. Along with the present petition they annexed the Compromise Deed as Annexure C.

5. The respondent no. 2-complainant appeared in person in Court on 13th July, 2012 and gave her no objection for quashing of the criminal case against the petitioners. She also confirmed that she had sworn an affidavit to the same effect and the same had been filed by the petitioners along with the present petition.

6. In view of the compromise between the petitioners and respondent no. 2-complainant, learned APP for the State had submitted that this Court could pass any appropriate orders in the matter.

7. A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.”, 2012 (9) SCALE 257 dealt with the aspect of quashing of non-compoundable criminal proceedings by the High Courts in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after noticing all the earlier judgments delivered by it on the point came to the following conclusions:-

“57. 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......................... the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and conti