Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2230 (RAJ)

Sankar Lal Sadhwani v. State of Rajasthan

2008-09-23

G.S.SARRAF

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed for quashing the FIR no. 7/2006 dated 13.1.2006 lodged at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the ground that compromise has been arrived at between the parties. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint on 13.4.2005 against the respondent no. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A copy of the complaint is Annexure-1. The respondent no. 2 then lodged a report at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur on 13.1.2006 against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had forged the cheque. A copy of the FIR no. 7/2006 is Annexure-2. During pendency of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and during pendency of the investigation in the FIR no. 7/2006 the parties arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute regarding payment of the money. On the basis of the settlement the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent no. 2 was withdrawn on 23.5.2008. The respondent no. 2 also wrote a letter to S.H.O. Jalupura stating therein that he did not want to proceed with the FIR no. 7/2006. S.H.O. Jalupura, however, did not record the said compromise. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this misc. petition for quashing the FIR no. 7/2006 lodged at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submit that the FIR relates to forgery of a cheque and the dispute is purely personal one. They further submit that the dispute between the parties has been finally settled and the continuation of the proceedings will merely waste the time of the Court. They also submit that the parties have filed a written compromise in this court. They, therefore, pray that the FIR no. 7/2007 lodged at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur be quashed. They place reliance on 2008 Criminal Law Journal 2237 (SC) and (2008) 4 SCC 582 . 5. Learned public prosecutor opposes. 6. They also submit that the parties have filed a written compromise in this court. They, therefore, pray that the FIR no. 7/2007 lodged at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur be quashed. They place reliance on 2008 Criminal Law Journal 2237 (SC) and (2008) 4 SCC 582 . 5. Learned public prosecutor opposes. 6. The fact that a compromise has indeed been reached is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. A written compromise has also been filed in this Court. The dispute which appears to be personal in nature and arises out of commercial transactions has been finally settled and no public policy is involved. In the light of the compromise it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. To continue the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. I am fully supported by 2008 Criminal Law Journal 2237 (SC) and (2008) 4 SCC 582 . 7. I accordingly allow this misc. petition and quash the FIR no. 7/2006 lodged at the police station Jalupura, Jaipur under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and all consequent proceedings.Petition Allowed. *******