The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement and the principles of amicable resolution of disputes, prevention of abuse of process of law, and securing the ends of justice.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Krishan Mehta and Sh. Shyam Mehta for quashing of FIR No.34/2015 dated 12.02.2015, under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on the basis of the settlement agreement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, M/s Sterling Component (India) having its registered office at 4348/4C, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi110002 through its authorized representative Mr. Dharmendra Saini on 14.07.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that Mr. Dharmendra Saini, the authorized representative of respondent no.2 present in the Court, has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that in the year 2011, the complainant met Mr. Rajiv Duggal who was the then manager of the accused company. He arranged a meeting with Mr. Krishna Mehta, MD of Energetic Lightning Pvt. Ltd. who told the complainant that he is running the business along with various other companies and expressed his desire to expand their business in north India and induced the complainant that if he does business with him then it would be very profitable for him. The complainant’s company then started doing business of supply of the CFL components to the accused company from June 2011. In the month of April/May 2012, the accused company was given supplies worth Rs. 44,73,555/-and they promised to make the payment by the end of June 2012. The accused-petitioner no.1 told the complainant that there company is going through a bad phase and thus they are unable to pay them. Later on, the petitioner no.1 bluntly asked the complainant not to visit their office. The petitioners kept on demanding more time for making the payment of all the dues. After some time, the petitioners bluntly refused to pay back the money which was due.

The complainant filed a criminal complaint No. 65/1/2014 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The IO filed a status report and indicated that the matter being civil in nature, there is no cognizable offence. Subsequently, during the pendency of the proceedings, the IO registered the FIR in question. Pending the investigation, the petitioners and respondent no.2 arrived at an amicable settlement.

4. Mr. Dharmendra Saini, authorized representative of respondent no.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement agreement, it is agreed between the parties that petitioner no.1 shall, on behalf of himself and petitioner no.2, pay an aggregate amount of Rs.45,00,000/-only (hereinafter referred to as “settlement consideration”) to respondent no.2 against its total claim as full and final settlement between the parties. The settlement consideration shall be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 14.07.2015. It is also agreed that upon execution of this settlement, respondent no.2’s entire claim against the petitioners shall stand fully satisfied and that respondent no.2 shall not be entitled to any further amount on account from the petitioners or initiate any action against the petitioners. It is also agreed that upon receipt of the settlement consideration the respondent no.2 shall immediately file an application before the concerned judicial forum in respect of its pending criminal complaint(s) seeking withdrawal/quashing of the said action(s) against the petitioners. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall not initiate any civil/criminal action for recovery or winding up proceedings against the petitioners, petitioners’ company and/or its directors. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall withdraw its claim as raised in company petition No. 12 of 2015 pending before this Court and se