JUDGMENT
P.K. Jain, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short called the Code) for quashing First Information Report No. 43 dated 4-4-1995, registered at police Station North, Chandigarh, for the offences under Sections 365, 384, 342, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in the statement of Shri Het Ram, respondent No. 2 herein.
2. According to the averments made in the FIR (Annexure P-I) there were certain monetary dealings between petitioner No. I and respondent No. 2. Some time ago the accounts were gone into and a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was found to be due from respondent No. 2 to petitioner No. 1. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- is alleged to have been paid and for the balance amount petitioner No. 1 got certain blank cheques signed from respondent No. 2 with the promise that the same would be returned when the amount would be cleared. On 28- 3-1995 respondent No. 2 got a cheque for Rs. 3,57,000/- from the Chandigarh Housing Board and deposited the same in his account in Andhra Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Petitioner No. I came to know about it and he forcibly took respondent No. 2 in his car to the premises of Decent Property Dealer, Sector 22, Chandigarh, and after taking one Goggi, took him to his own residence in House No. 129. Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. After giving beatings and extending a threat, respondent No. 2 was made to issue two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and confined respondent No. 2 in his own house. Thereafter petitioner No. 1 got encashed those cheques. On that very day at about 3.00 p.m. the petitioners forced him to sign certain promissory notes, cheques, papers, general power of attorneys-cum-agreements, affidavits and two special power of attorneys (all blank) and told him that whenever he would pay the remaining amount these documents would be re- turned. On the basis of this statement made by respondent No. 2, the FIR in question was recorded on 4-4-1995.
3. It is stated in the present petition that there were certain business dealings between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 for quite some time and on account of some misunderstanding the said FIR was got recorded by respondent No. 2; that at the intervention of certain friends and respectables a compromise was effected between the parties on 7- 4-1995, copy of which is Annexure P4: that thereafter the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. It is then stated that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by further investigation and continuation of the case. Thus, it is stated that although some of the offences mentioned in the FIR are non-compoundable, yet the Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ought to quash the FIR to meet the ends of Justice and for the maintenance of good business relations between the parties.
4. Notice of motion was given to the respondents. In reply, respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit admitting the averments made in the petition that FIR No. 43/95 has been registered at his instance; that he had business dealings with petitioner No. 1; that there were differences on account of which the said case was got registered and that at the invervention of common friends and respectables the accounts and disputes between the parties have been settled. He has further stated that it would be in the interest of the parties if the FIR and other proceedings are quashed. No separate reply has been filed on behalf of Union Territory, Chandigarh, although the petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the U. T. at the Bar.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that there were business dealings between the parties for the last several years; that the accounts were settled and on account of some misunderstanding respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR in question. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel that all the disputes between the parties have been, got settled including the accounts at the invervention of the common friends and respectables vide compromise deed Annexure P.4 and as such it is just and proper if the FIR in question is quashed to that the business relations between the parties may be maintained. Respondent No. 2 appearing in person along with his counsel has also submitted that all the disputes between him and the petitioners have been resolved amicably and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
7. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U. T. Chandigarh has opposed the petition on the ground that the FIR has been registered for certain offences which are non-compound- able and this Court has got no powers or jurisdiction to quash the FIR on the basis of the alleged compromise between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1. It is also urged that Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to defeat the provisions of law.
8. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced at the bar. Admittedly, the FIR in question has been registered for the offences under Sections 365, 384, 342, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, out of which the offences under Sections 365 and 384 are non-compoundable even with the permission of the court as provided by Section 320 of the Code. But the question arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, like the present one, this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR.
9. In Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A. P., 1987 (2) JT 361, an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, which is non-compoundable, was allowed to be compounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India. Similarly, in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan , their Lordships of the apex Court permitted the parties to compound an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.
10. In Sri Narain v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 CCR 1151, it was observed by the Rajasthan High Court that the High Court and the Supreme Court have inherent powers to pass orders under the Code to secure the ends of justice. Hence, if it comes to the knowledge of the High Court that in recording the compromise of the case, ends of justice would be secured, it is essential to pass such orders. It was further observed that even otherwise, not to allow compromise may also result in such circumstances to the same end because the complainant in that case would not support the prosecution story and the Court instead of advancing the cause of justice would encourage perjury and if that is not done at trial, evil thoughts will again start in the minds of the parties for having another innings of battle.
11. In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) Chand Cri C 444, the FIR had been recorded for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 148/149, I.P.C. However, the parties came to a compromise and filed a petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the said FIR. This Court observed as under :-
“From the compromise deed and the affidavit furnished by the respondent it is made out that the parties are no longer daggers “drawn and whatever dispute was there which resulted in the incident has been settled amicably. The compromise is arrived at without any threat or coercion by either side. It is correct that some of the offences mentioned in the FIR are not compoundable yet the Courts always lean in favour of compromise even in case which are not compoundable. This fact is not denied that none of the injuried suffered any grievous injury and remained as indoor patient. Although the occurrence took place long back, yet challan has not been presented against the parties. The chances of conviction are bleak. Interest of justice call for quashing. Petition allowed.”
12. From a perusal of the compromise deed Annexure P.4, it is evident that there were other dealings and disputes also between the parties. All the disputes including the dispute under the present FIR have been amicably settled at the intervention of certain respectables. Once the parties have settled their disputes and differences, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in Court and to proceed with the trial. The obvious reason is that even if the report under Section 173 of the Code is filed in the Court, the complainant and his witnesses would resile from their previous statements, which would mean encouraging perjury. Looking to the past business dealings between the parties and after considering the totality of the fads and circum- stances of the case, the larger interest of justice and to maintain business relations between the parties, it is just and proper if the parties are not dragged to the I Court to face a trial in a criminal charge which has | lost its objective.
13. For the reasons mentioned above; I accept this petition and hereby quash the first information report in question and all other subsequent, proceedings thereto.