The main legal point established is the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law when considering the quashing of criminal proceedings based on amicable settlements.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Mukesh Singhla for quashing of FIR No.169/2012 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 406/420/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Crime Branch on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Y.S. Tomar.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by SI Virendra Singh.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that in May, 2011, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Tilak Raj, Mr. Heera Lal Aggarwal and Mr. Mukesh Singla approached the complainant through Mr. Sukhbir Panwar who is his partner in Medha Housing Pvt. Ltd. for selling three B.Ed. Colleges situated in Panipat, Haryana. An MOU was entered into by the parties. Rs. 1 Crore was given to Mr. Heera Lal Aggarwal and Rs. 10 lakhs were given as loan to Mr. Tilak Raj and 50% share in all the colleges was given to Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Tilak Raj and Mr. Sukhbir Panwar. As per the MOU, 40% to 60% members were to be inducted by 31.07.2011 in all the colleges. But despite several meetings with the above named persons, the terms of the MOU were not complied with, rather, Mr. Heera Lal Aggarwal and Mr. Mukesh Singla ran away with the agreements of the property. Aggrieved by their conduct, the complainant asked them to return the money, but they all refused to pay back the same.

The petitioner was not charge sheeted as an accused person in the charge sheet dated 17.01.2015 and was kept in column No.12 of the charge sheet. During the course of investigation, the respondent no.2 had fully and finally settled the disputes/matter amicably with the accused persons and thus he got his statement recorded on 25.10.2012 before the Ld. ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi stating that he will assist the petitioner in getting the FIR in question quashed against him.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the statement of respondent no.2 before the Ld. ACMM, Saket on 25.10.2012, it is stated that respondent no.2 has received demand drafts No. 341766 for Rs. 9 Lacs, DD No. 341767 for Rs. 9 Lacs, DD No. 341768 for Rs. 5 Lacs, DD No. 341773 for Rs. 9 Lacs, DD No. 341774 for Rs. 9 Lacs and DD No. 341769 for Rs. 9 Lacs dated 05.10.2012 from Sh. Heera Lal Aggarwal and DD No. 880757 for Rs. 2.10 Lacs and DD No. 880758 for Rs. 7.90 Lacs both dated 15.10.2012 from Sh. Tilak Raj amounting to Rs. 60 Lacs in toto. It is further stated by respondent no.2 that he shall do all that is necessary to assist all the accused persons named in the FIR in question in quashing the same and all consequential proceedings before this Court and shall cooperate with the accused persons as and when required. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between t