- (1.) THIS Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 903/2011 registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under Section 420 IPC. The short facts of case narrated in the petition are that the complainant lodged a report at PS -JDA, Jaipur on 8.11.2011 stating therein various allegations defined u/s 420 IPC. On the said report, an FIR No. 903/2011 has been registered at Police Station J.D.A., Jaipur for offences under Section 420 IPC.
(2.) AFTER lodging of the FIR with the efforts of well -wishers of both the parties arrived to an amicable settlement. The dispute which has been narrated in the FIR arises out of commercial transaction and it can be brought to an end through composition of the offence, hence the prayer of the petitioner is that FIR be quashed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also agreeable to the same situation and both the parties have filed an agreement deed which was verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.). The only contention of the present petitioner is that the matter has been compromised between the parties and hence the FIR should be quashed and reliance has been placed on Jagdish Chanana and Ors vs State Of Haryana and Anr., JT 2008 (4) SC 511 wherein it was held: ''The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. ''
(3.) FURTHER reliance has been placed on Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677 wherein it was held: ''On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. '' ;