BELA M.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. being No. 171/2012 dated 24.7.2012, registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar(East), Jaipur City, Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 406,420 IPC, pursuant to the order of investigation passed by the ACJ(JD)MM No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur,(hereinafter referred to as "the said Court "), under Section 156(3)Cr. P.C.
(2.) IT has been submitted by Mr.Tanveer Ahmed,learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 complainant was the Retail Agent of the petitioner and some disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 with regard to Retail Agent Agreement and therefore, the respondent No.2 had filed the complaint against the petitioner before the said Court. The said Court having directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the dispute being of civil nature, the same has been settled between the parties outside the Court and the Settlement Deed, dated 30.8.2012 , as well as the affidavit of the complainant in support of the said settlement are placed on record. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2012 Jayarajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana V. State of Gujarat and Anr. decided on 20.7.2012, in SLP(Cr.) No. 8783 of 2011, the learned counsel has submitted that the F.I.R. against the accused be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor along with the learned counsel Mr.Rizwan Ahmad, appearing for the respondent no. 2 have also submitted that the parties have settled their disputes outside the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is present in Court and is being identified by him. In the instant case, it appears that the private complaint was lodged by the respondent no. 2-complainant against the present petitioner-accused before the said Court, for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by the Court. On the basis of the said complaint, the F.I.R. being No. 171/2012, was registered at the police station Jawahar Nagar(East), Jaipur City, Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC . Now, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent no. 2 that the parties have settled their dispute out-side the Court and also placed on record the settlement-deed. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. V. Radhika and Anr.(2011)10 SCC 705, has observed as under:- "17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr. P.C. " "18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situation in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. " The said decision has been considered by the Apex Court in the recent decision in case of Jayarajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana(supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised even when the alleged offences are not compoundable, more particularly when no useful purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings, which pertained to the dispute of civil nature. Having considered the said decisions of the Apex Court in the light of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have settled their disputes out-side the court which dispute otherwise appear to be of civil nature, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings registered against the petitioner. In that view of matter, the FIR No. 171/2012,registered at police station Jawahar Nagar(East), Jaipur City, Jaipur, and all the proceedings emanating from the said F.I.R. are hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.;