#44 \ % 30.08.2011 Present: Petitioner in person with Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate. ,--- Ms. jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent/State. Respondent No.2 in person with Mr.Amar Pal, Advocate. +Cri.M.C.No.2895/2011 and Cri.M.A. 10258/2011 ;-J This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.515/2006 under Section 420/468/471/193/196 IPC registered against the petitioner at P.S. Tilak Marg on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2. Ground for seeking quashing is that the FIR is the result of a loan transaction financed by the petitioner which has been amicably settled and now there is no dispute left between the parties. Ordinarily, in case of private disputes between the parties, even if ;. the offence is non-compoundable, High Court, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the FIRs in order to maintain ---' peace and harmony between the parties. However, while exercising such powers, the Court is under obligation to consider whether the offence complained of in the FIR concerns only the complainant/victim and accused or it is an offence against the society. c-;! In the instant case, the petitioner is a financer. Allegation against him is that while financing respondent No.2, the petitioner obtained signed cheques from her on the assurance that those signed cheques -'-', would be returned after the repayment of loan. However, after receiving substantiated repayment of loan, the petitioner started pressurising the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified respondent No.2 to extort exorbitant interest and in order to compel respondent No.2, he even fabricated the cheques given by her as security against the loan by changing the date of issue. Thereafter, he presented those cheques and on the dishonour of cheques even he filed the complaint under Section 138 N .I. Act against the respondent. Aforesaid conduct of the petitioner against the respondent does not fall within the meaning of a simple offence involving only the parties. He has not only fabricated/forged the cheques by changing the date of issue but he has utilised the same for filing of false complaint under Section 138 N.l. Act against respondent No.2. The petitioner is a financer and in every likelihood, he must be exploiting other persons also. Under these circumstances, considering the grave nature of offence committed by the petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings of FIR No.515/2006 under Sections 420/468/471!193/196 IPC P.S. Tilak Marg in exercise of powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is dismissed. AUGUST 30, 2011 ks (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE C. ' ' ': I :·· ,-! ' '