Point of Law: Powers of High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably.

ORDER :

The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) for quashing of F.I.R No.4 of 2021, dated 7.1.2021, under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court qua the petitioner.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that respondent No.2 made a complaint before the police alleging therein that he is a Contractor by profession and had planned to install a cold store at his native place, for which, he constructed a building. He came into the contact of accused, namely, Vinay Kumar and respondent No.2 with a belief that the petitioner has knowledge about the setting up of such like projects and assured him that he will manage his meeting with Rakesh Kumar-petitioner herein, who will also prepare the documents with respect to the project and believing on saying that respondent No.2 agreed to meet with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and other persons had a meeting with respondent No.2. All these persons assured respondent No.2 to get the work done within one month and told respondent No.2 that they will charge rupees five lac, as expenses and fee, on account of installation of said project and asked respondent No.2 to deposit some money in account of the petitioner and also demanded Rs.1,20,000/- as GST etc; which is to be done by Vishwanath Traders Sundernagar, District Mandi. Further, it has been stated in the complaint that respondent No.2, believed all these persons and transferred the amount, as demanded by all these persons from his and from his wife’s account to the accounts of all of them. When, respondent No.2 did not receive any communication from the accused persons, then he started making inquiry about the progress of work in the said project, but accused persons started making excuses and when respondent No.2, demanded money from these persons they had flatly refused to return the same. On the basis of statement of respondent No.2-complainant, FIR in question was registered. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) dated 6th December, 2021, stating therein that the complainant does not want to pursue the case against Rakesh Kumar-petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against Rakesh Kumar-petitioner and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the offence is not compoundable, so the petition may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties have entered into compromise, so, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below may be quashed qua the petitioner.

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, have held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have held as under:

[6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cou