Advocates:
['SANJAY AGRAWAL', '', 'SHARMILA SINGHAI', 'REENA SINGH', 'Akhand Pratap', 'A G', '', 'RUPESH TIWARI']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CR.M.P. No. 1234 of 2017

Vijay Agrawal, S/o. Shyam Ji Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years,

Proprietor- Shree Bala Ji Auto Agency, R/o. In Front Of Sardar Petrol

Pump, Tehsil & Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station

Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chand Prakash Jaiswal, Branch Manager, Shree Ram Finance

Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Branch Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Ashish Shukla, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent No.2

:

Mr. Rupesh Tiwari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

26.02.2018

1.

The instant petition is to quash the FIR No.321/2017 registered at

Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur under Section 406 & 420 of

I.P.C.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was made

by Shree Ram Finance through one Chand Prakash Jaiswal, Branch

Manager, that the petitioner has embezzled and committed forgery in

respect of the payment due to him. He submits that the petitioner was

a sub-dealer of two wheelers and there have been financial

transactions in between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and

because of dispute of accounting the quantum of amount was disputed

as according to the complainant huge amount was due from the

petitioner whereas according to the petitioner the amount was meager.

2

Consequently, a settlement was arrived at which is part of the record

and the parties have amicably settled their financial dealing and certain

amount has already been paid and complainant do not want to

prosecute the FIR lodged at his behest.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the settlement

has been arrived at for Rs.22 Lakhs, which is evident from the deed of

settlement and therefore the respondent No.2 also do not want to

prosecute his FIR further.

4.

Considering the submission made by the parties and after perusal of

the deed of settlement, it appears that the nature of complaint is

private in nature whereas due to some monetary transaction the report

was made and thereafter settlement was arrived at. Therefore, no

purpose would be served with further investigation in the FIR

No.321/2017 registered at Police Station Takhatpur.

5.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

Another¹ has laid down the following principles :

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion

can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in

quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different

from the power given to a criminal court for compounding

the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent

power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it

has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted

in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to

prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases

power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or

F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim

have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and

circumstances of each case and no category can be

prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the

1

(2012) 10 SCC 303

3

High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity

of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or

victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.

Such offences are not private in nature and have serious

impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the

victim and offender in relation to the offences under

special statutes like Prevention of Corru