The Court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, especially in cases with a private or civil nature, to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP and Mr. Nilay A. Thaker, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-53 of 2000 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, District Ahmedabad for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of IPC, Criminal Case No. 1682 of 2000 and other proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

3. Mr. Nisarg P. Raval, learned advocate for the applicants submits that quashing petition was filed on the ground of settlement between the parties. Mr. Raval states that it is an issue with regard to property of commercial complex and the complainant has settled the dispute with the applicant, and that there remains no grievance between them. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned APP has produced report of the police inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City verifying the factum of settlement whose statement was recorded on 04.02.2023, who has also provided a copy of the affidavit to the police.

5. Mr. Nilay A.Thaker, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Nisarg P. Raval appearing for the applicants. Mr. Thaker stated that earlier on 03.07.2018, the complainant has filed his affidavit on the factum of settlement, which has been amicable arrived at between the parties.

6. The complainant could not remain present before this Court. The Court instructed Advocate Mr. Nilay A. Thaker to contact the complainant through his mobile device, and accordingly the complainant was on video conferencing before this Court and affirmed the settlement by the applicants with almost all victims and thus asserted for quashing of the FIR.

6.1 Further, Additional Affidavit of the applicant is on record, where he has stated that he has settled the disputes with witness no. 2-Rameshbhai Goordhandas Bagadiya, witness no. 4-Yogesh Bhupendrabhai Patel, witness no. 5-Rajubhai Jagannathabhai Parekh, witness no. 6-Rajendrabhai Natvarlala Shah and witness no. 7-Kirit Narsinhbhai Patel and he stated that witness no. 3-Pravinkumar Mohanlala Bagadiya, witness no. 8-Anil Gunvantlala Vora and witness no. 15-Satishbhai Hiralal Patel passed away and witness no. 9-Kiritbhai Jayantilal Shah is accountant of the applicant; and the entire dispute has been settled with the parties and it is purely a business transaction.

7. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even thou