JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.Accused-applicant Vivek Gupta has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.PC., for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in case No. 255/2005 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur, arising out of FIR No. 280/2003, lodged at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 280/2003 against accused-applicant at Police Station Ashok Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur, for the offence under Section 420, 120-B, IPC, wherein it was alleged that the complainant and other persons purchased plots of land from Vivek Gupta, President of Shanti Graha Nirman Sahakari Samiti, in the year 1989. The President of the Society has again sold the same plots to other persons in the year 2000. The said land has now been acquired by the Jaipur Development Authority and there is a proposal for raising construction 5 of road on the said plots, therefore, it is clear that complainant-party has been cheated by President of the Society, therefore, a suitable legal action may be taken in the matter. 3. Apprehending his arrest, Shri Vivek Gupta filed an application under Section 438, Cr.PC., i.e. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1025/2005 in this Court, which came for hearing on 15.03.2005. The accused applicant Vivek Gupta as well as complainant Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, both, were present-in-person and both of them submitted before this Court that they have entered into a compromise and, as per the compromise, alternative suitable plot will be allotted to the complainant by 5 30th April, 2005. 4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court was pleased to allow the application under Section 438, Cr.PC., filed by Vivek Gupta on certain terms and conditions including condition No. 4 that in case the accused-applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions of compromise entered into in between the parties and the suitable plot is not given to the complainant then it will be open for the complainant to move an application for cancellation of the bail. 5. Subsequently, the complainant Sanjeev Kumar Saxena filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.PC. 5. Subsequently, the complainant Sanjeev Kumar Saxena filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.PC. i.e. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005 for cancellation of the bail order dated 15.03.2005 granting bail to accused Vivek Gupta, stating therein that accused has not given a suitable plot of land to the complainant. 6. A notice of the said application was given to accused- applicant and, in response thereof, he stated by moving an application dated 12.07.2006 that he has already allotted alternative plots and also executed the sale-deed in favour of the complainant. A copy of the registered sale- deed was also placed on the record and the same was not disputed by the complainant also. 7. This court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the both the parties and, in view of the fact that a sale-deed has already been executed and registered and a plot and possession thereof has already been given to the complainant, therefore, a substantial compliance of the compromise has already been made, and consequently dismissed the application for cancellation of order granting bail to accused-applicant. However, a liberty was given that in case there is any further dispute in between both the parties then they are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant, in support of his present application for quashing the proceedings of the trial court, contended that during the pendency of the Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005, a written compromise duly signed by all the parties dated 30.08.2005 was placed on the record and, according to the condition No. 8 of the compromise, it was agreed that in case a valid possession and title of a plot is made available by the accused-applicant to the complainant, then the complainant party will have no objection in getting the FIR No. 280/2003 quashed, but in case any dispute arises in respect of the said plot in future then accused-applicant will remain responsible for it. He further contended that the applicant has already executed the sale-deed and the same has been handed over to the complainant, therefore, the present application may be allowed and the proceedings of the trial court arising out of FIR No. 280/2003 be quashed and set aside. 9. He further contended that the applicant has already executed the sale-deed and the same has been handed over to the complainant, therefore, the present application may be allowed and the proceedings of the trial court arising out of FIR No. 280/2003 be quashed and set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that although the sale-deed was executed and registered by complainant and possession of the plot was also handed over but when they went for raising construction at the spot then they were prevented by some other persons and they could not get their construction completed and they also lodged a separate FIR in the matter, therefore, the present application filed by the accused-applicant cannot/should not be allowed and the same be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the earlier order dated 15.03.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1025/2005, order dated 07.08.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005 and also the compromise dated 30.08.2005 duly signed and attested by both the parties. 11. There is no dispute that both the parties had entered into a compromise and both of them were present-in-person before this Court and contended that they have entered into a compromise and application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2005. 12. There is no dispute in between both the parties that after filing S.B. Criminal Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005, the applicant Vivek Gupta has executed the sale-deed and got the same registered in favour of the complainant-party and handed over the possession of the plot of land. The original sale-deeds were given to complainant-party. Photostat copies of the sale-deed were also placed on the record in file of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005. The original written compromise dated 30.08.2005 duly signed and attested by both the parties was also placed on the record. 13. The grievance of the applicant is that in spite of execution of sale-deed and handing over of possession of the plot, the police has filed a charge-sheet and accused is facing trial in the trial court whereas the grievance of complainant is that in spite of execution of sale-deed in their favour they are not in a position to raise construction over the disputed plot. However, they are not able to point out any deficiencies in the sale-deed in respect of plots. The complainant has already filed another FIR as contended by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments. This court has also given liberty to the parties to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court in case there is further dispute in between both the parties. The matter in between both the parties was finally settled while passing the order dated 07.08.2006 dismissing the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 2707/2005. 14. In these circumstances I am satisfied that criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 280/2003 should not be allowed to be continued in the interest of justice. As per terms of compromise, the complainant had agreed that he will not oppose quashing of FIR in case the sale-deed is executed in his favour and possession of the plot is given to him. The copy of sale-deed has been placed on the record and, even according to case of complainant, possession of the plot has been given to the complainant. The offence under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320, Cr.PC., with the permission of the Court. A written compromise duly signed by both the parties dated 30.08.2005 is already on the record. In case there is any further dispute, the complainant is at liberty to initiate civil or criminal proceedings against the concerned persons, who are making any obstruction in his construction over the plot in dispute. The continuation of the present proceedings are nothing but only an abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. The matter was settled in between both the parties twice. 15. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations in the first information report, charge-sheet, compromise in between both the parties, execution and registration of sale-deed by accused-applicant in favour of complainant in terms of compromise, the offence under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable with the o permission of the Court under sub-section (2) of Section 320, Cr.PC., I find that to prevent abuse of process of the court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings of the trial court pending against accused-applicant be quashed. Even otherwise, looking to the merits of the case, as referred and considered above, I find that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the accused-applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the proceedings pending against the applicant is nothing except the abuse of process of law, therefore, the ends of justice will meet in case the proceedings pending against the applicant are quashed and set aside. 16. Consequently, the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., filed by the accused-applicant Vivek Gupta, is allowed. The charge-sheet and the entire proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 255/2005 arising out of FIR No. 280/2003, as referred above, are quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed. *******