[2012] 6 S.C.R. 534 A JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.1040 of 2012) JULY 20, 2012 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.482 and 320/- Dispute over C disposal of plot/property - Averments in FIR disclosing offences punishable ulss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 1208 /PC against accused-appellant and two other accused - Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings having regard to settlement between respondent no. 2-complainant and appellant - Held: D In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between the parties; subsequently the appellant swore an affidavit with bona fide intention securing right, title and interest in favour of respondent no.2 - Further, in view of settlement arrived at between respondent no.2 and appellant, there is no chance E of recording a conviction of appellant - Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High Court, by exercising the inherent power u/s.482 CrPC even in offences which are not compoundable under s.320 CrPC, may quash t/1e prosecution - By applying the same analogy and in order F to do complete justice u/Artic/e 142 of the Constitution, the terms of settlement insofar as the appellant is concerned are accepted - Impugned FIR accordingly quashed qua the appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.467, 468, 471, 420 and 1208.

G Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of power under -Scope - Held: The power under s. 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that H 534 JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 535 GUJARAT AND ANR. continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse A of the process of law. Respondent No. 2 was the President of Plot Owners' Association. Certain plots of the said Association were allegedly disposed of illegally by accused No.1 by 8 creating false/forged documents in favour of accused No.2 who, in turn, sold the same to accused no.3 (the appellant). Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging collusion of the three accused persons in disposing of the plots. The averments in the FIR disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 4'71, 420 C and 120-B of IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant filed application under Section 482, CrPC before the High Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High Court dismissed the application. D The instant appeal was filed challenging the or:der of the High Court. However subsequently, before the Supreme Court, respondent no·. 2 filed a counter affidav1t stating that subsequent to filing of the appeal, the appellant had approached respondent no.2 to show his E bona tides that he himself was a victim in the said transactions and was cheated by accused no.1 and 2;

that the appellant further informed respondent no.2 that he shall not claim any right, title, interest over the various plots belonging to the association; that the appellant has F given an affidavit to respondent no.2 that he will withdraw the civil suit for specific performance and declaration, accepting that the appellant did not have any legal right, possession, title or claim over the various plots in issue as they were sold to him by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the G basis of forged documents and that considering the bonafide intention of the appellant he has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua the appellant The question for consideration before this Court was H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A that inasmuch as all the alleged offences are not compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC (except Section 420 IPC that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR B by the High Court under Section 482, CrPC' or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, the Court

C HELD: In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and the appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant details etc., the appellant (Accused No. D 3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No.2-complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent E No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High F Court, by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC even in offences which are not compoundable under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. However, the power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for G reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, 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. In the light of these H

. JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 537 GUJARAT AND ANR. principles, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the A Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice B under Article 142 of the Constitution, the terms of settlement insofar as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned are accepted. In view of the same, the impugned FIR for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC is quashed insofar c as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [543-D-H; 544-A-E] Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr. (2011) 10 sec 705 - relied on. D Case Law Reference: (2011) 10 sec 105 relied on Para 8, 9 CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2012. E From the Judgment & Order dated 18.07.2011 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011. F L. Nageshwar Rao, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas Singh, Charu Mathur, S. Hari Haran for the Appellant. S.8. Upadhyay, Sharmila Upadhyay, Pawan Kishor Singh, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.

A 18.07 .2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') to quash and B set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 lodged by Vipulbhai Harshadbhai Raja, Respondent No. 2 herein with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). c 3. Brief facts: (i) Respondent No. 2 herein is the President of Shri Supan Plot Owners' Association situated at Village Nidhrad, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Certain plots of the said Association were D disposed of illegally by creating false/forged documents by one Pravinbhai Gangashankar RavaLJoriginal Accused No.1) in favour of one Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (original Accused No.2) who, in turn, sold the same to one Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3). E (ii) Pursuant to the same, Respondent No. 2 herein lodged FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 alleging about the sheer collusion of all the three above named accused persons in disposing of the plots.

F (iii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant herein (Accused No.3) preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High Court, by impugned order dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the same. G (iv) Challenging the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel H for the appellant, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 539 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] respondent No.1-State of Gujarat _and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, A learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 - the Complainant. 5. In view of the subsequent development, as narrated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 in this Court, B there is no need to traverse all the factual details about the allegations and the ultimate order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code. The following averments in the counter affidavit are relevant for disposal of the above appeal which C reads as under:

"5. That after the filing of the present special leave petition, the petitioner to show his bona fides and to prove that he himself is a victim has approached the answering respondent. The answering respondent was informed by D the petitioner that the petitioner himself got cheated by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011). The petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he shall not claim any right, title, E interest over the various plots belonging to the association and accordingly he has no right or title over the same. 6. The petitioner further submitted that he was also cheated by the other accused persons who sold the F properties being subject the matter of dispute to whom on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, by which no rights can be transferred legally. 7. That the petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he has also filed a police complaint G against the said accused Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011) before the Special Investigation Team, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A 8. That the petitioner further assured and has given an affidavitto the answering respondent that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011, titled as Jayarajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs. Supan Plot Owners Association & Ors, filed before the City Civil Court) Ahmedabad for B specific performance and declaration, accepting that the petitioner did not have any legal right, possession, title or claim over the various !'.)lots in issue as they were sold to him by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant t~e basis of forged documents. He furtherc case) on accepted the answering respondent to be the genuine owner of th~ plots in existence and with them. 9. That after considering the bona fide intention of the petitioner the answering respondent hereby has no D objection if the present FIR No. 45/2011 _is quashed qua the petitioner. However, this requires to be clarified that the properties allegedly transferred in favour of the petitioner shall be conside}ed as the property of the Association and this transactiqn which had taken place E between the accused pers()Jls is a null and void transaction through which no title, right and interest has ever been transferred and the possession of the property was and is with the Association.

10. That in view of the above ana since the right, title andF interest of the association is now protected as the documents showing transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner stand declared as incomp'etent documents, therefore, the answering respondent has no objection if the present special leave petition is allowed and the FIR in G question is quashed qua the petitioner." The above information in the form of counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 herein before this Court shows that by bona fide efforts, the appellant, who himself being the victim at the H hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, assured Respondent No. 2 JAYRAJSINH DIGVlJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 541 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

that he will not claim any right, title and interest over various A plots beloflging to the Association. It is further seen that the appellant has also executed an affidavit to Respondent No. 2 statifl9 that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011 filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for specific performance and declaration, accepting that he did not have B , any legal right, possession, title or claim over the var~ol!s plots in issue as they were sold to him by Accused Nos. land 2 on the basis of forged documents, Respondent No.2, after satisfying the bona fide intention of the appellant, informed this Court, by way of counter affidavit, that he has no objection if c the present FIR No. 45/2011 is quashed qua the appellant. Respondent No.2, in categorical terms, informed this Court that in view of the stand taken by the appellant and since the right, title and interest of the said plots of the Association is now . protected as the documents showing transfer of the property 0 in favour of the appellant stand declared as invalid documents, he has no objection if the present appeal is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned. Apart from the above stand of Respondent No. 2 in the form of counter affidavit, learned senior counsel E appearing for him also reiterated the same.

6. It is also relevant to point out that the averments in the FIR disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-8 of IPC. F 7. The only question for consideration before this Court at this stage is that inasmuch as all those offences are not compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code (except Section 420 of IPC that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is G pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India? H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A 8. The above question was recently considered by this Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 sec 705. The question posed in that case was "Whether the criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement B that the parties had arrived at." After adverting to Section 482 of the Code and various decisions, this Court concluded as under:

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not c compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. 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. D 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 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing E 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 F offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC. 18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that theG plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC 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 H

JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 543 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the A prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations 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 B 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 tb appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition c 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." D

9. On going through the factual details, earlier decision, various offences under Section 320 of the Code and invocation of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said conclusion. In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and the E appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant details etc., the present appellant (Accused No. 3.) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No.2 herein-the Complainant. F In such bona fide circumstances, the power under Section 482 may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire G exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A However, as observed in Shiji (supra), the power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly 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 nothirig but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power B 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. 10. In the light of the principles mentioned-above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the Complainant has filed an affidavit C highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying th~ same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of D settlement insofar as the appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 11. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police E Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 4 71, 420 and 120-B of I PC insofar as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 534 A JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.1040 of 2012) JULY 20, 2012 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.482 and 320/- Dispute over C disposal of plot/property - Averments in FIR disclosing offences punishable ulss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 1208 /PC against accused-appellant and two other accused - Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings having regard to settlement between respondent no. 2-complainant and appellant - Held: D In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between the parties; subsequently the appellant swore an affidavit with bona fide intention securing right, title and interest in favour of respondent no.2 - Further, in view of settlement arrived at between respondent no.2 and appellant, there is no chance E of recording a conviction of appellant - Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High Court, by exercising the inherent power u/s.482 CrPC even in offences which are not compoundable under s.320 CrPC, may quash t/1e prosecution - By applying the same analogy and in order F to do complete justice u/Artic/e 142 of the Constitution, the terms of settlement insofar as the appellant is concerned are accepted - Impugned FIR accordingly quashed qua the appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.467, 468, 471, 420 and 1208.

G Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of power under -Scope - Held: The power under s. 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that H 534 JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 535 GUJARAT AND ANR. continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse A of the process of law. Respondent No. 2 was the President of Plot Owners' Association. Certain plots of the said Association were allegedly disposed of illegally by accused No.1 by 8 creating false/forged documents in favour of accused No.2 who, in turn, sold the same to accused no.3 (the appellant). Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging collusion of the three accused persons in disposing of the plots. The averments in the FIR disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 4'71, 420 C and 120-B of IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant filed application under Section 482, CrPC before the High Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High Court dismissed the application. D The instant appeal was filed challenging the or:der of the High Court. However subsequently, before the Supreme Court, respondent no·. 2 filed a counter affidav1t stating that subsequent to filing of the appeal, the appellant had approached respondent no.2 to show his E bona tides that he himself was a victim in the said transactions and was cheated by accused no.1 and 2;

that the appellant further informed respondent no.2 that he shall not claim any right, title, interest over the various plots belonging to the association; that the appellant has F given an affidavit to respondent no.2 that he will withdraw the civil suit for specific performance and declaration, accepting that the appellant did not have any legal right, possession, title or claim over the various plots in issue as they were sold to him by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the G basis of forged documents and that considering the bonafide intention of the appellant he has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua the appellant The question for consideration before this Court was H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A that inasmuch as all the alleged offences are not compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC (except Section 420 IPC that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR B by the High Court under Section 482, CrPC' or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, the Court

C HELD: In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and the appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant details etc., the appellant (Accused No. D 3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No.2-complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent E No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, the High F Court, by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC even in offences which are not compoundable under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. However, the power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for G reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, 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. In the light of these H

. JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 537 GUJARAT AND ANR. principles, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the A Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice B under Article 142 of the Constitution, the terms of settlement insofar as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned are accepted. In view of the same, the impugned FIR for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC is quashed insofar c as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [543-D-H; 544-A-E] Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr. (2011) 10 sec 705 - relied on. D Case Law Reference: (2011) 10 sec 105 relied on Para 8, 9 CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2012. E From the Judgment & Order dated 18.07.2011 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011. F L. Nageshwar Rao, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikas Singh, Charu Mathur, S. Hari Haran for the Appellant. S.8. Upadhyay, Sharmila Upadhyay, Pawan Kishor Singh, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.

A 18.07 .2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3999 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') to quash and B set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 lodged by Vipulbhai Harshadbhai Raja, Respondent No. 2 herein with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). c 3. Brief facts: (i) Respondent No. 2 herein is the President of Shri Supan Plot Owners' Association situated at Village Nidhrad, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Certain plots of the said Association were D disposed of illegally by creating false/forged documents by one Pravinbhai Gangashankar RavaLJoriginal Accused No.1) in favour of one Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (original Accused No.2) who, in turn, sold the same to one Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana, the appellant herein (original Accused No. 3). E (ii) Pursuant to the same, Respondent No. 2 herein lodged FIR No. 45 of 2011 dated 12.03.2011 alleging about the sheer collusion of all the three above named accused persons in disposing of the plots.

F (iii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant herein (Accused No.3) preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court to quash and set aside the said FIR. The High Court, by impugned order dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the same. G (iv) Challenging the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel H for the appellant, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 539 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] respondent No.1-State of Gujarat _and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, A learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 - the Complainant. 5. In view of the subsequent development, as narrated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 in this Court, B there is no need to traverse all the factual details about the allegations and the ultimate order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code. The following averments in the counter affidavit are relevant for disposal of the above appeal which C reads as under:

"5. That after the filing of the present special leave petition, the petitioner to show his bona fides and to prove that he himself is a victim has approached the answering respondent. The answering respondent was informed by D the petitioner that the petitioner himself got cheated by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011). The petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he shall not claim any right, title, E interest over the various plots belonging to the association and accordingly he has no right or title over the same. 6. The petitioner further submitted that he was also cheated by the other accused persons who sold the F properties being subject the matter of dispute to whom on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, by which no rights can be transferred legally. 7. That the petitioner further informed the answering respondent that he has also filed a police complaint G against the said accused Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant case FIR No. 45/2011) before the Special Investigation Team, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A 8. That the petitioner further assured and has given an affidavitto the answering respondent that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011, titled as Jayarajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana vs. Supan Plot Owners Association & Ors, filed before the City Civil Court) Ahmedabad for B specific performance and declaration, accepting that the petitioner did not have any legal right, possession, title or claim over the various !'.)lots in issue as they were sold to him by Pravinbhai Gangashanker Raval and Janakben Pravinchandra Raval (accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant t~e basis of forged documents. He furtherc case) on accepted the answering respondent to be the genuine owner of th~ plots in existence and with them. 9. That after considering the bona fide intention of the petitioner the answering respondent hereby has no D objection if the present FIR No. 45/2011 _is quashed qua the petitioner. However, this requires to be clarified that the properties allegedly transferred in favour of the petitioner shall be conside}ed as the property of the Association and this transactiqn which had taken place E between the accused pers()Jls is a null and void transaction through which no title, right and interest has ever been transferred and the possession of the property was and is with the Association.

10. That in view of the above ana since the right, title andF interest of the association is now protected as the documents showing transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner stand declared as incomp'etent documents, therefore, the answering respondent has no objection if the present special leave petition is allowed and the FIR in G question is quashed qua the petitioner." The above information in the form of counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 herein before this Court shows that by bona fide efforts, the appellant, who himself being the victim at the H hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, assured Respondent No. 2 JAYRAJSINH DIGVlJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 541 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

that he will not claim any right, title and interest over various A plots beloflging to the Association. It is further seen that the appellant has also executed an affidavit to Respondent No. 2 statifl9 that he will withdraw the Civil Suit bearing No. 300/2011 filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for specific performance and declaration, accepting that he did not have B , any legal right, possession, title or claim over the var~ol!s plots in issue as they were sold to him by Accused Nos. land 2 on the basis of forged documents, Respondent No.2, after satisfying the bona fide intention of the appellant, informed this Court, by way of counter affidavit, that he has no objection if c the present FIR No. 45/2011 is quashed qua the appellant. Respondent No.2, in categorical terms, informed this Court that in view of the stand taken by the appellant and since the right, title and interest of the said plots of the Association is now . protected as the documents showing transfer of the property 0 in favour of the appellant stand declared as invalid documents, he has no objection if the present appeal is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned. Apart from the above stand of Respondent No. 2 in the form of counter affidavit, learned senior counsel E appearing for him also reiterated the same.

6. It is also relevant to point out that the averments in the FIR disclosed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-8 of IPC. F 7. The only question for consideration before this Court at this stage is that inasmuch as all those offences are not compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code (except Section 420 of IPC that too with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is G pending), whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India? H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A 8. The above question was recently considered by this Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. vs. Radhika & Anr. (2011) 10 sec 705. The question posed in that case was "Whether the criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement B that the parties had arrived at." After adverting to Section 482 of the Code and various decisions, this Court concluded as under:

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not c compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. 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. D 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 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing E 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 F offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC. 18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that theG plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC 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 H

JAYRAJSINH DIGVIJAYSINH RANA v. STATE OF 543 GUJARAT AND ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the A prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations 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 B 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 tb appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition c 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." D

9. On going through the factual details, earlier decision, various offences under Section 320 of the Code and invocation of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said conclusion. In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2- the complainant and the E appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials, relevant details etc., the present appellant (Accused No. 3.) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No.2 herein-the Complainant. F In such bona fide circumstances, the power under Section 482 may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present appellant is concerned and the entire G exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A However, as observed in Shiji (supra), the power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly 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 nothirig but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power B 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. 10. In the light of the principles mentioned-above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the Complainant has filed an affidavit C highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying th~ same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of D settlement insofar as the appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 11. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police E Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 4 71, 420 and 120-B of I PC insofar as the appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.