Point of Law : The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Saroj Yadav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nadeem Murtaza and Mr. Prashant Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (in short Constitution) has been filed by the petitioners to quash the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) registered at Case Crime No.0531 of 2020, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) at Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow and not to proceed, prosecute or arrest the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Previously, after going through the record and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the private respondent No.4, this Court gathered that prima-facie the case relates to business/corporate transactions and the F.I.R. has been lodged due to some personal feud between two real brothers. This Court deemed it proper to persuade the parties to settle the dispute amicably. 'Abraham Lincoln' has said "discourage litigation persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time." Hence the Court with the consent of petitioners and respondent No.4 gave them chance to settle their dispute amicably through the process of Mediation/Conciliation. Accordingly, the matter was so referred.

4. Today the counsel for the petitioners as well as private respondent No.4 appeared and submitted that they have settled their dispute amicably with the help of Mediator and blessings of the mother of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. So F.I.R. may be quashed, as there is no dispute or bickerings left between the petitioners and respondent No.4. The counsel for the petitioners as well as private respondent relied upon the following case laws:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

2. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303.

3. Narinder Singh and anothers Vs. State of Punjab (2014) Criminal Law Journal 2436.

4. Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641.

5. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others (2018) 10 SCC 443.

5. This Court is empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) and under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. in certain circumstances and relating to certain offences. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble the Apex Court has considered in detail the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R.

6. In B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court again explained the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings.

7. In Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677, where the dispute was settled between the parties on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

"30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question