Quashing of proceedings for serious offenses like counterfeiting is not permissible even if a settlement is reached, as such offenses affect society at large.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Taggu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the state respondent.

2. The present criminal petition has been instituted, praying for quashing of the F.I.R., dated 09.01.2021, lodged before the Police of the Itanagar Police Station, leading to registration of Itanagar Police Station Case No. 8/2021, under Sections 489B/489C of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC).

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under.

Shri Tarh Tagung, the petitioner No. 2 herein, had lodged an F.I.R. on 07.01.2021, inter alia alleging that the petitioner No. 1 herein, was caught with fake notes (Rs. 500 notes) while purchasing a packet of cigarette from his shop (Gumti), situated near Dokum Baptist Church at around 9 P.M. On receipt of the said F.I.R., the Police of Itanagar Police Station registered Itanagar Police Station Case No. 08/2021, under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC. The investigation in connection with the said case is presently underway. The materials brought on record reveal that during the course of investigation, the Police had recovered another 5 (five) numbers of fake currency notes, all of denomination Rs. 500 from the vehicle of the petitioner No. 1, herein. It is also revealed that further 4 (four) persons were arrested and one of the persons who was arrested was the wife of the petitioner No. 1.

The petitioners have instituted the present proceeding by contending that the informant, in Itanagar Police Station Case No. 08/2021, Shri Tarh Tagung, the petitioner No. 2 herein, had entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioner No. 1 and had resolved to settle their differences and the resolution of the differences was reduced to writing in the form of a settlement agreement, dated 06.07.2024, executed by the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2, i.e. the accused and the informant in Itanagar Police Station Case No. 08/2021.

In terms of the said agreement, as reached between the petitioners herein, it was resolved that they would take steps for quashing of the FIR lodged against the petitioner No. 1 by the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1, relying on the said settlement agreement and an affidavit sworn by the petitioner No. 2, wherein, he had undertaken that he would not raise any further grievance against the petitioner No. 1, has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in the Itanagar Police Station Case No. 08/2021.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issues arising in the matter between the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2, having been resolved and such resolution also having been reduced in writing in the form of a settlement agreement, dated 06.07.2024, this Court would be pleased to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita( BNSS ), 2023, to quash the proceedings in Itanagar Police Station Case No. 08/2021.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also produced the materials available on record.

6. While it is a settled position of law that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, is empowered, in a given case, to quash the criminal proceedings involved, however, such power is circumscribed and is to be so invoked with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of Court and otherwise, to secure the ends of justice.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab and Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, had categorical