IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22567 of 2024 DIPESH SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashutosh Sharma - Advocate for petitioners.

Madhushudan Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

None appeared for respondent No.2..

ORDER With the consent of both the parties matter heard finally.

The petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the petitioners for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.58/2021 at Police Station, STF Bhopal, District Ujjain for offences under Sections, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in Short 'IPC') and Section 66-D of IT Act.

2. The facts of case in brief is that petitioners on the basis of fake mail I.D., in the name of Capital Federation Company Investment Advisory and also prepared a forged invoice of the Company and sent the alleged forged invoice to complainant Avinash Jain and committed cheating with the complainant of an amount of Rs.4,10,000/-. Accordingly, the police registered FIR in relation to Crime No.58/2021 at Police Station, STF Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA Bhopal, District Ujjain for offences under Sections, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in Short 'IPC') and Section

66-D of IT Act against petitioners/accused.

3. Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant, a joint compromise petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court. On verification, Principal Registrar has certified on 13.06.2024 that both the parties have entered into a compromise without any threat, inducement and coercion from either side and they have voluntarily entered into compromise.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the matter pertaining to offence registered against the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in Short 'IPC') and Section 66-D of IT Act has been amicably settled between both the parties and complainant has no more grievance against the petitioners. Therefore, continuance of proceedings before the trial Court will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of the parties.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment of non-compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-a-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA parties, may amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise has arrived at between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question is not against the society, but merely affect the complainant.

7. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 883 the Apex Court held as under:- "Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the pro