The court has the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases where the offences alleged are more in the nature of personal wrong rather than a threat to society at large, and where the parties have entered into a compromise.

1. - This misc. petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 520/2013 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Baran, District Baran for offence u/Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition in brief are that complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a complaint against the petitioner in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Baran for offence u/Ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, which was sent by the court to the Police Station Kotwali, Baran, District Baran for investigation and FIR No.520/2013 was registered. During these criminal proceedings, both the parties entered into a compromise and pursuant thereto, a joint application (Ann.2) was submitted to the Superintendent of Police Baran, District Baran. Hence, this petition for taking the compromise on record and in the light thereof, seeking prayer for quashing of the above-said FIR.

3. The compromise (Ann.2) as well as the application (Ann.3) seeking to take the compromise on record has been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) today.

4. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the matter has been compromised between the parties and hence the FIR should be quashed and reliance has been placed on Jagdish Chanana & Ors v. State Of Haryana & Anr., JT 2008 (4) SC 511 wherein it was held:-

"The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise."
Further reliance has been placed on Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Anr., (2008) SCC 677 wherein it was held:

"On an overall view of the facts as indicated here-in-above and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."
In Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr, (2011) 10 SCC 705 it was held:

"It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some misunderstanding and misconception will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr.P.C. could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below."
In B.S. Joshi & Ors v. State Of Haryana & Anr JT 2003 (3) SC 277 , the Supreme Court held:

"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
In Jayrajsingh Digvijays