Sahil Arora @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.120/2018, registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur

West for offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

This court on 23.04.2018 had passed the following order:-

“Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a franchise agreement was executed between Danube Home International Limited And Somani

Home Studio Private Limited.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is an employee of Danube Home International Limited. Counsel for the petitioner has

contended that on 18.03.2018 a notice was issued by Danube Home International Limited for termination of franchise and arbitration clause was

invoked.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 20.03.2018 suppressing the factum of the notice issued by the petitioner, complainant lodged an FIR

that the sub-standards goods of low quality were supplied by Danube Home International Limited of which petitioner is an employee.

Counsel contends that it is a case of contractual obligation and civil consequences arising thereof and not of criminal liability.

Issue notice to the respondents for 16.07.2018. Till then, further proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR qua the petitioner shall remain stayed.â€​

Today, Shri Vyagesh Kumar Singh has caused appearance alongwith Anil Kumar Somani, complainant-respondent No.2.

In pre-lunch session this court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to record statement of Anil Kumar Somani, complainant-respondent No.2,

upon his identification by his counsel. In pursuance of above said order, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has recorded statement of Anil Kumar Somani,

complainant. The said statement, for ready reference, is reproduced below:-

“jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqj

,l0ch0 fdzfeuy fel0 ihfV'ku uEcj 2180@2018 lkfgy vjksM+k cuke ljdkj o vU;

fnuakd 17@07@2018

eSa vfuy dqekj lksekuh iq= Lo0 Jh 'kadjyky lksekuh] vk;q yxHkx 52 o""kZ] tkfr egktu] fuoklh&1@117 fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj ftyk&t;iqjA

'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd fnuakd 20-03-2018 dks eSus iqfyl Fkkuk fo'odekZ esa ,QvkbZvkj 120@2018 vUrxZr /kkjk 420 ,oa 406 vkbZihlh esa

x.ks'kpUnk] lbZ;n gchc] jtr 'kekZ] lksgsy vljQ vkSj lkfgy vjksMk ds uke ntZ djk;h FkhA bu yksxksa us esjh QeZ lksekuh gkse LVwfM;ks izkbosV fy0

ftldk irk ,Q&77¼,1½ jksM u0 5 fo'odekZ ij esjs ls vfxze QzsapkbZth Qhl o eky ds Hkqxrku izkIr dj eq>s xyr eky lIykbZ fd;kA bu vfHk;qDrksa dh

dEiuh ds izfrfuf/k lkfgy vjksMk us fnuakd 22-06-2018 dks ,d lsVsyesaV ,xzhesUV fy[kkA ftlesa buds }kjk lIykbZ fd;k gqvk eky buds }kjk okfil [kjhn

dj eq>s Hkqxrku VªkatsD'ku u0 ,,Dl,lds 181730024759 fnuakd 22-062018 dks :i;s 75]06]160-00 dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k ,oa cdk;k QzsapkbZph Qhl :i;s

7]50]000-00 dk Hkqxrku ,QlhMh ds ek/;e ls fnukad 0307-2018 dks dj fn;k x;k gSA vc gekjs chp fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fookn 'ks""k ugha gSA eSa vc bu

vfHk;qDrx.k ds f[kykQ vkxs dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV %& xokg dk c;ku esjs funsZ'ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ } kjk dEI;qVj ij Vafdr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks mlus

mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA

vkj0vks0 ,.M ,0lh0

fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½â€​

Anil Kumar Somani, complainant-respondent No.2, in terms of statement made has submitted that he has received all outstanding amount and he no

longer intend to pursue the present FIR.

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012)

10 SCC 303] to contend that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal

proceedings, where the parties have amicably resolved the dispute in a matter which is essentially private in nature.

Since the parties, to promote everlasting peace and harmony in the society, have decided to bury the hatchet, this court is of the view that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the respective parties.

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the dispute has been resolved by the

parties by way of compromise, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings, is quashed.