The main legal point established is the sparing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving amicable resolution of disputes.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Virender Singh for quashing of FIR No. 314/2013 dated 29.07.2013, under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Aman Vihar on the basis of the Settlement Deed executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Samoki Lal on 14.09.2015.

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 ASI Raj Kumar.

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 represented himself to be the owner of the plot No. khasra no. 24/11, land eadurinf 30 yards situated at Parvesh Nagar colony, Delhi and that he wanted to sell the same to the complainant. The complainant agreed to the same and started giving payments to the accused in installments. The accused gave the GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and deed of will to the complainant. The accused told the complainant that he would hand over the possession of the said plot later on. Thereafter, the accused started delaying the delivery of possession of the said plot to the complainant. In September, 2012, the accused refused to deliver the plot. Even the documents given to the complainant were forged. Thereafter, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement with each other.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement deed, it is agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1.3 Lakhs to respondent no.2 in two installments. It is agreed that the first installment of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid at the time of the signing of the said deed and the second installment of Rs. 80,000/- shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall not claim any right, title or interest in property Khasra No. 24/11 land measuring 30 sq. yard situated at Parvesh Nagar Colony, Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi-81 after the implementation of the present settlement. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate and give his no objection affidavit for quashing the FIR in question. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall not institute any other proceedings, complaint or legal case for any claim in respect of the said property. It is also agreed that if respondent no.2 fails to give the NOC for quashing of the FIR, then the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount paid at the time of signing of the present agreement, through the process of law and in case the petitioner fails to file the quashing petition within two months of signing of the present settlement deed, the amount paid at the time of signing the present settlement deed shall stand forfeited. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 06.01.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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