(1.) Complainant Bhagat Ram and accused Sampangi Ram are present in person. They have been identified by their learned counsel. Parties are identified by the I.O. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing FIR 57/2005, PS Rajinder Nagar, under Sections 406/420/120-B of Indian Penal Code.
(2.) I have heard Mr.K.K.Tyagi learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission as also gone through the documents placed on the file.
(3.) One Bhagat Ram Sharma had sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police informing that accused persons had cheated him for a total sum of Rs.6 lacs after giving him assurances that they would get his son admitted in Medical College at Bangalore. Admission could not be obtained and on repeated protests of Bhagat Ram only a sum of Rs.50,000/- was returned. On this complaint an FIR was registered under Sections 406-420/120-B IPC. It is stated in the petition that the matter has been settled amicably. The entire amount has been paid back and it is prayed that the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment titled B.S.Joshi & Ors.vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 275, arguing that this court has powers to permit compounding of even non compoundable offences. There is no dispute about the legal position but in the said judgment itself the law on this aspect has been discussed. In para 10 of the said judgment it is stated that the High Court has powers to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. That was a matter of dispute between husband and wife and there was question of saving the marriage. Therefore, it is germane to appreciate the facts and circumstances of each case.