JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned counsel appearing for the informant (opposite party no. 2). 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the first information report as also quashing the criminal prosecution of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story is based on a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 on 04.01.2016 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhapra wherein he has alleged that the petitioner being a neighbour told him that he had to sell his own share and shares of his brother and cousin brother of residential house having an area of 1 katha 12 ½ dhur. Considering the offer made by the petitioner, the complainant expressed his desire to purchase the said part of residential house as his house was situated next to the house of the complainant. The price of the house was fixed at Rs.40 lacs. The complainant believing upon the offer made by the petitioner gave a sum of Rs.15.5 lacs in cash by way of advance and the petitioner executed an agreement to sell on 11.06.2015. According to the agreed terms, the complainant had to pay the remaining amount within a year and get the deed executed. The petitioner had also given his account number and had requested the complainant to deposit the remaining amount through RTGS. Thereafter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 17.06.2015, Rs.10.05 lacs on 03.08.2015 and Rs. 4 lacs on 26.08.2015 in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, for payment of remaining amount of six lacs, the complainant approached the petitioner a number of times, but he kept avoiding on one pretext or another. It is further alleged that the complainant finally went to pay the balance amount to the petitioner on 04.10.2015 when he came to learn about the conspiracy that on 02.09.2015 itself, a registered deed of sale had been executed by the petitioner and his cousin in favour of one Smt. Rajlakshmi, wife of Mahesh Singh. It is alleged that inspite of receiving Rs.34 lacs and inspite of the complainant tendering remaining amount the petitioner failed to execute the registered sale deed. 4. It is alleged that inspite of receiving Rs.34 lacs and inspite of the complainant tendering remaining amount the petitioner failed to execute the registered sale deed. 4. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police for investigation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which Chapra Town P. S. Case No. 31 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner and Smt. Raj Lakshmi under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the informant that after filing of the criminal case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. They have drawn my attention towards a joint compromise petition duly affidavited by the petitioner and the informant (opposite party no. 2). 6. The relevant portion of the compromise petition is extracted hereunder:- “2. That a dispute relating to sale of immovable property and payment of consideration, lead to filing of Chapra Town P.S Case no. 31/2016 by the Second Party against the First Party and others. 3. That it may also be stated here that out of the same transaction which lead to the filing of the above mentioned FIR i.e. Chapra Town P.S. Case no. 31/2016, two more title suits have been filed, one by Sumit kumar Singh (Second Party) and the other by Abhay kumar Verma (First Party). The details of the two suits are as follows:- i. Title Suit No. 54/2016: Sumit kumar Singh vs. Abhay Kumar Verma and seven others pending in the court of Sub Judge I, chapra. ii. Title Suit No. 569/2016: Abhay kumar Verma vs. Sumit kumar Singh & eight others pending in the court of the learned Sub Judge I, Chapra. 4. That without entering into the merits of the case of the respective parties it is stated that at the intervention of the friends and well wishers, both the parties i.e. the First Party Abhay kumar Verma and Second Party Sumit Kumar Singh have agreed to compromise all the cases between them and to bring to an end all litigations in all courts, on the following terms and conditions:- i. That the first party Abhay kumar Verma shall pay to the second party Sumit Kumar Singh a total sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs) only by two account payee demand drafts (bearing no. 501931 for Rs. 12,00,000/- and no. 502012 for Rs. 3,00,000/- both dated 09.08.2017 and drawn on the ICICI bank) in fabour of Sumit kumar Singh (A/C no. 19671930001410 HDFC Bank, Chapra). A photo copy of the said demand draft shall be attached with this agreement, to be retained by both parties. The original demand drafts shall Be handed over to the second party i.e. Sumit kumar Singh or his counsel through the Hon’ble court at the time that the criminal case arising out of the FIR i.e. Chapra P.S. Case no. 31/2016 is quashed by this Hon’ble Court. ii. That at the same time the T.S no. 54/2016 pending in the Court of Sub-Judge 1, Chapra shall be withdrawn by Sumit Kumar Singh, and the first party Abhay Kumar Verma will also withdraw T.S no. 569/2016 pending in the court of the Sub-Judge 1, Chapra. 5. That it is clarified here that any other criminal, civil or other litigation which may have been filed by either of the parties arising out of the above transaction which led to the filing of Chapra Town P.S. Case no. 31 of 2016 and the two suits, will also be withdrawn by the respective parties. 6. That it is clarified that the compromise arrived at between the parties and the consequent withdrawal of the criminal case and withdrawal of the two suits is without entering into the merits of the cases of the respective parties and any steps taken by either of the parties to facilitate the instant compromise shall not be used by the other side in any adverse manner in any proceeding. 7. That after disposal of the above referred three cases the First Party Abhay Kumar Verma and the Second Party Sumit Kumar Singh Shall not have any claim over the other party. 8. That the instant joint petition of compromise is being entered into by the two parties out of their own free will and without any threat or coercion. Both the parties are signing this agreement along with and in presence of the witnesses.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance with terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid compromise petition, the petitioner has handed over two demand drafts of Rs.12 lacs (bearing no.501931) and Rs.3 lacs (bearing no. Both the parties are signing this agreement along with and in presence of the witnesses.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance with terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid compromise petition, the petitioner has handed over two demand drafts of Rs.12 lacs (bearing no.501931) and Rs.3 lacs (bearing no. 502012), which were initially issued on 09.08.2017 and subsequently, they have been renewed on 21.03.2018 by the ICICI Bank drawn in favour of the informant Sumit Kumar Singh to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant (opposite party no. 2). 8. Learned counsel appearing for the informant admits the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that two demand drafts were initially issued on 09.08.2017. Subsequently, there is an endorsement over them by the Bank that they have been re-issued on 21.03.2018. She has acknowledged the aforestated two demand drafts duly purchased in the name of the informant. 9. I find that the dispute between the parties is of civil flavour. The wrong alleged in the FIR is basically private and personal in nature. I also find that the parties have settled the dispute without any threat or pressure. In such type of cases, a duty is cast upon the Court to encourage genuine settlements. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ 2012(10) SCC 303 ] has held that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in case of bona fide settlement, the Court may quash the criminal prosecution having overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour. 10. Consequently, keeping in mind the amicable settlement of dispute between the parties and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (Supra), the first information report of Chapra Town P. S. Case No. 31 of 2016 and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. The application stands allowed.