Quashing of FIRs for serious economic offences, such as forgery, cannot be justified by private settlements due to their implications on societal interests.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition to quash FIR No. 144 of 2010, dated 17.04.2010, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 120B, 452, 323, 506, and 147 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. As per the FIR, late Smt. Kalawati had executed a Will. Another Will stated to have been executed by her was propounded by Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vinay Kumar, Rahul and Raja, which was stated to be forged. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found during the investigation that the person, who wrote the signatures on the admitted document did not put the signatures on the disputed Will. The Will propounded by the accused was found to be forged. The police filed a chargesheet against the accused before the Court.

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR based on the compromise between the parties. It was asserted that the matter has been compromised voluntarily, and the parties do not want to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties. They want to settle all the disputes. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Jaswal and another versus State of H.P. & another 2017 HHC 1606, Subhash Chand versus State of H.P. & another 2019 HHC 9678 and K. Bharthi Devi & Anr. Versus State of Telangana & Anr., 2024 INSC 750 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, submitted that FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC involves the forgery of the documents and such offences are against the society. They should not be quashed by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inParbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 that where the settlement between the offender and the victim is regarding the offences against the society, the same will not justify the quashing of the FIR. The offences punishable under Sections 467 , 468 and 471 of the IPC involve the forgery of the document and such offences cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the IPC. It was observed:-

13. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29: (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 563], a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the respondents were alleged to have obtained letters of credit from a bank in favour of fictitious entities. The charge sheet involved the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills. Mr Justice Dipak Misra (