The court can quash FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when disputes have been amicably settled between the parties and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 549/2016, under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dwarka, South West District, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the instant case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Satyender Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh R/o 2B/182, awas Vikas Colony Baraut, District Baghpat U.P, filed against Sunil Dev, Sunil Tomar (Petitioner herein) and Sunil Sharma. In the said complaint it is alleged that accused No. 2 is an old friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant. In august, 2013 accused No. 2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a villa bearing No. E 100, Raman Vihar Society which was allotted in name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores. Out of the said amount, complainant had paid Rs. 1,85,70,000/- (Rs. 1.25 Crores in cash to accused No. 1 and Rs. 64 Lacs to accused No. 2 by cheque). The said amount was misappropriated by accused No.1 and 2 and the deal was also not finalized. Thereafter, the instant FIR No. 549/2016, under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dwarka, South West District, Delhi was lodged.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have settled the matter amicably in terms of the MOU/Settlement Deed dated 23.07.2021. Copy of the said settlement is placed on record.

4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no disputes, claims or grievances that now remain pending between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and that disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are of a private nature, and as they have been amicably settled, the FIR dated 21.10.2016 against the petitioner and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2 were present in Court and they have been identified by the IO. I have interacted with the parties and they submitted that they have settled their disputes. Respondent No.2 admits that he has settled the matter amicably with the petitioner. He further submits that the settlement/compromise has taken place voluntarily, without any force, pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2 submitted that nothing remains to be adjudicated further between them and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioner.

6. Learned aPP for the State submitted that for the non-cooperation of complainant/ respondent No. 2, the instant case has been submitted before concerned Ld. MM as closure and the said closure report is pending consideration. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement, the State has no objection if the FIR in question be quashed qua the petitioner.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers

8. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 4