The court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure 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. Deepak Mishra @ Sumit and Sh. Deepak Kumar @ Dipu for quashing of FIR No.337/2011 dated 10.11.2011, under Sections 406/409/419/420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar on the basis of the settlement agreement executed at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Tarjeet Singh for himself and on behalf of respondent no.3-Sh. Gursharanjit Singh on 03.11.2015.

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 his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the accused persons herein in connivance with others including some unknown officials of the UCO Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi cheated the complainant of their hard earned money. In the end of August 2011, the complainant received a call from a person and introduced himself as the employee of Dhamlakshmi Bank and promised to get the complainant an overdraft account of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs. Thereafter, Sumit, as representative of the said bank called the complainant and asked to meet him. Then, the complainant met him and gave him photographs of documents, property papers etc. Then the complainant gave him a cheque signed by his father-respondent no.3 of Rs. 1250/-. Later he came to know that Rs. 4.1 lakhs was withdrawn from the account of respondent no.3. The said cheque issued by the complainant was misused and the date was changed and the amount was written as Rs. 4.1 lakhs instead of Rs. 1250/-. Even the name of the drawee was changed from Dhanlakshmi Bank to Deepak Kumar.

Thereafter, the IO on 29.02.2012 filed the charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. The petitioners were arrested and released on bail on 07.03.2012 and 20.03.2012 respectively. The Trial Court on joint request of the parties referred the matter for mediation. Thus, the parties amicably resolved all their issues.

4. Respondent no. 2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement agreement, it has been agreed that respondent nos.2 & 3 shall compound the offences subject matter of FIR in question with the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 2.6 Lakhs which is to be paid equally by both the accused as per the schedule mentioned in the terms of the agreement. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall pay Rs. 1 Lakh to respondent nos. 2 & 3 before the Referral Court on 28.11.2015 either in cash or by way of DD. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall initiate appropriate legal proceedings for quashing of the FIR in question and all the proceedings emanating therefrom before 15.12.2015 before this Court qua them and that respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same including the issuance of NOC/execution of affidavits whatsoever may be necessary. It is further agreed that the petitioners shall pay Rs. 1.6 Lakhs with equal proportion i.e. Rs. 80,000/-each to respondent nos. 2 & 3 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that in case the quashing petition is not allowed, in that eventuality, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall return Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioners in equal proportion before the Referral Court as per the directions of the Referral Court. It is also agreed that after the execution of the terms and conditions of the current settlement agreement, respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall not initiate any other proceedings either civil or criminal against the petitioners nor shall they raise any claim in respect of subject matter of FIR in question qua the petitioners. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesa