The court can invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, especially for offences of a less serious nature.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners. And also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This is an application jointly filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings in GR Case No.21/2020, under Sections 409/471/468/420/34 of the IPC, 1860, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, on the basis of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.

3. The prosecution case emanates from the complaint dated 21.02.2020 filed by the petitioner No.1 before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Aalo, stating that pursuant to the NIT dated 04.11.2019, the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 had participated in the tender process for construction of Taru MIP at Kombo village (West Siang) by submitting their bid documents. It is alleged that the petitioner No.2 had submitted a copy of the forged affidavit with regard to the legal status of the bidders by changing the date of issue of the non-judicial stamp paper. The non-judicial stamp paper on which the affidavit for legal status of the bidders was actually issued on 12.12.2019, and it was forged and shown to be issued on 13.11.2019. On such a complaint, the FIR was initially registered against the petitioner No.2, being Aalo P.S. Case No.12/2020 under Sections 471/468/420 of the IPC.

4. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet dated 06.05.2021 was filed under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC, 1860 against the petitioner No.2 and under Section 409 of the IPC, 1860 against the petitioner No.3 and section 34, IPC against both.

5. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on realizing their mistake of over writing in the affidavit with regard to the legal status of the bidders, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had settled the matter by entering into a deed of settlement on 06.09.2022. Initially, the work of Taru MIP at Kombo village (West Siang) was awarded to the petitioner No.1, but he has surrendered it and the work was subsequently awarded to some other firm, namely, M/s Bali Diyum, which has already been completed. While not admitting that they have forged the document as alleged, the parties have realized and accepted that the date of issuance of non judicial stamp paper on which an affidavit for legal status of the bidders was submitted by the petitioner No.2, was of over writing, for which, the petitioner No. 2 accepts his mistake. In any case, the issue has been settled between the parties. Thereafter, by an another deed of settlement dated 04.01.2024, the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 have entered a deed of settlement finally by conclusively settling the matter. Therefore, Mr. Jini submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be futile one as the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. Thus, the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

6. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that since the offence charged with under Section 409 of the IPC, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment for life or either description for a term which may extend to 10 (ten) years which is serious in nature, the criminal proceeding in the present case cannot be quashed.

7. Ms. Jini has placed and relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case State of Madhya Pradesh -vrs- Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, particularly, paragraph 15.3, to show that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. She submits that in the present case, the petitioner No. 3 is a public servant, against whom an offence under Section 409 IPC is charged with. Ms. Jini further submits that the offences charged with