Economic offences involving cheating, forgery and impersonation cannot be quashed under inherent powers based on compromise due to their societal impact and harm to public financial interests.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking quashing of FIR No.64 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the compromise.

2. As per the FIR, the informant had received a call from a person representing himself as the Manager of a Petroleum Company. The caller also forwarded some documents to the informant. The caller said that the informant’s application for a petrol pump was sanctioned, but he would have to deposit Rs.50,000/-. The informant deposited the money, but the caller asked for a larger amount. When the demand for the deposit continued to increase, the complainant got suspicious and reported the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.

3. It has been asserted that the parties have settled the matter with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. The informant does not want to proceed further with the present matter. Hence, the petition.

4. I have heard Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.S. Gnaneshwaran vs. The Inspector of Police & Anr. SLP Crl. Nos. 17481-17482 of 2024 decided on 28.05.2025 in support of his submission.

6. Mr. Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State submitted that the allegations against the petitioners show the forgery of the documents. Such an FIR cannot be quashed based on a compromise. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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 in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9 SCC 641 that a settlement between the offender and the victim in offences against society 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 Cr PC. It was observed:-

13. In 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 (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of forgery; hence, the Court was not dealing with a simple case where “the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere”. The Court held that the manner in which letters of credit were issued, and funds were si