HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5726/2018

1. Babulal @ Navratan S/o Shri Bholaram B/c Mali, Aged About

41 Years, R/o Proprietor Ashok Express Service Kho Walon Ka Chowk Gopal Ji Ka Rasta Munna Shopping Chamber Johari Bazar Jaipur Raj.

2. Kripa Shankar Sharma Owner Ashok Courier, Kalba Devi Road

6/8 Khandela Bari Ground Floor Dahich Seth Angreji Lane Bombay ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

2. Kailash Chandra Agarwal S/o Shri Ramchandra Agarwal B/c Mahajan, Aged About 66 Years, R/o B-89 Saraswati Marg Bajaj Nagar Jaipur Raj. Business Address Shop No 24 Purohit Ji Ka Katla Johari Bazar Jaipur Raj.

3. Lakshman Singh S/o Prithvi Singh Rathore Proprietor Starling Engineering Company, Mejamin Floor Sarvoday Commercial Centre Near Reelifa Cinema Salawas Road G.p.o. Ahmedabad Gujarat

4. Tejas N. Shah Tejas Dye And Chemicals, 9 Jain Merchant Society Paldi Ahmedabad 07 Gujarat ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand For the State : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Order

11/12/2018 Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.66/2007 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur City, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 511, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

In the present case, quashing of impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent proceedings has been sought on the basis of the compromise affected between the parties, as it is submitted that the dispute has been amicably resolved and the parties have decided to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony.

Kailash Chandra Agarwal, complainant/respondent No.2 is present in person before this Court. He has been identified by his Counsel Mr. Poonam Chand.

Complainant/respondent No.2 present in person, has stated that he had sent two cheques, in question through courier and the courier had misplaced the said consignment, resultantly the complainant had stopped the payment of the cheques. It is further stated that the said cheques were presented by a person residing at Ahmadabad. Complainant-respondent No.2 has stated that on the basis of the said cheques, no complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Complainant-respondent No.2 has further stated that he had named four persons as accused in the impugned F.I.R. He has submitted that earlier the Investigating Agency has submitted a Final Report in negative form and later the Court took cognizance against only two accused i.e. the present petitioners. Lastly, complainant-respondent No.2 has submitted that since the accused have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, he has decided not to pursue the present F.I.R.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the compromise was presented before the trial Court and the trial Court, vide its order dated 23.04.2018 accepted the compromise, qua offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and acquitted the petitioners of the said offence.

Counsel appearing for the parties have vouchsafed the factum of compromise and have further submitted that the trial has not proceeded as the parties are yet to be examined by the trial Court.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the parties have decided to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony, therefore, dispute which is essentially private in nature stands resolved.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that since the dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal case pending between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings even qua non-compoundable offences.

Relying upon the case of Gian Singh Vs. State