The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in cases where settlements have resolved disputes, to prevent abuse of process of law and 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. Kapil Narula, Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma, Sh. Prabhat Sagar, Sh. Vikas Gupta and Sh. Nitin for quashing of FIR No.86/2013 dated 03.04.2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahendra Park on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Shyam Lal Arora on 20.08.2015.

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 on 30.03.2013, at around 11:30 am, the complainant received a message on his cell phone that an amount of Rs. 8.5 lacs has been withdrawn from his account through self cheque No. 956602, whereas the complainant did not have any cheque book of that series. Somebody had fraudulently presented the cheque and has withdrawn the said amount.

Thereafter, the respondent no.2/complainant made a complaint with the police and on the basis of the same, the FIR in question was lodged against the petitioners herein. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet on 15.07.2015 against the petitioners/accused persons. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 20.08.2015.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement affidavit dated 20.08.2015, of respondent no.2 which has been filed on record, it is stated that he has arrived at a compromise with the petitioners and that the loss so incurred by respondent no.2 has been compensated. It is further stated that in pursuance of the compromise, respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the proceedings emanating out of the FIR in question any further. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. 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 the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be