The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be used sparingly and with caution, and can be invoked 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. Raj Kumar and Smt. Kamla for quashing of FIR No.257/2008 dated 23.07.2008 under Sections 420/448/467/471/34/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar on the basis of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, namely, Sh. Ajit Singh.

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 by SI Prem Pal.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that in the year 1998, the complainant had purchased a plot bearing no. B-721, Weavers Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, hereinafter, referred to as “Property in Question”, from one Sh. Nanak Chand. After some time, father of the complainant and petitioner no.1 purchased the adjoining plot i.e. Plot No. B-720 with a view that both the brothers would reside together.

Since the accused no.1 was not engaged in any work and had no income, the complainant provided funds for the construction and while the construction was going on, the complainant resided in MCD Flats, Kamla Nagar. The complainant allegedly shifted to Rohini due to family disputes and on 21.02.2003, father of the complainant and the petitioner no.1 visited him and asked for the original documents of the property in question. When the complainant visited his father and the petitioner no.1, the complainant was informed that the papers of the property in question were stolen by his father and petitioner no.1. Thereafter, on 12.12.2004, the complainant came to know that some unknown people had started residing in the said property and the accused persons told him that they were only tenants. In July 2005, the complainant was shocked to learn that the petitioner no.1 had sold the property in question to the tenants by making false and fabricated documents.

Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that he does not wish to pursue the case after the demise of his father Sh. Karan Singh, who is the other accused person in the FIR in question and due to old age of his mother, petitioner no.2 herein.

Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 24.05.2016. In the affidavit, he 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 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 question(s) 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