.. i #39 05.04.2011 Present: \ Mr. Jugal Wadhwa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State/respondent No.1 along with Inspector Rajeev Kumar, P.S. Mehrauli. Respondent No.2 in person along with Mr. Sanjay Madan, Advocate. + Cri.M.A.No.4139/2011(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. WP(Crl.) N0.476/2011 & Cri.M.A.4138/2011 1. As per Annexure P-2 i.e. certified copy of order dated 11.02.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket, New Delhi, the matter is listed before learned ASJ today for further arguments/quashing of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this appears to be a typographical error as learned Sessions Judge has no power to quash the FIR and he gives an undertaking that request for compounding of case on the ground of settlement will not be pressed by the petitioners before the learned ASJ. 2. Lokesh Kumar and jaipal Kashyap, the petitioners herein vide this petition are seeking quashing of FIR No.494/2006 under Sections 406/420/468/193/34 IPC P.S. Mehrauli on the ground that petitioners and Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified v complainant/respondent No.2 have arrived at an amicable settlement and now there is no dispute left between them. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are related to each other and in the interest of harmonious relationship, they have agreed to settle the matter without any inducement or threat from any corner and pursuant to the settlement, a sum 2,17,000/- has already been paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 vide a bankers cheque No.981968 dated 09.02.2011 drawn on State Bank of India and the petitioners have brought a draft of to be paid to the complainant in full and final settlement of the agreement arrived at between them. 4. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.S.joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2003(4) SCC 675, it is well settled that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do • substantial justice are not fettered by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even in the cases where the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court, in order to do substantial justice, is empowered to quash the FIR taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence. 5. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 is admittedly a practicing Advocate. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2 that on 10.05.2004 both the petitioners approached the complainant and told him that there were some vacancies of court staff to be filled in the Rohini Court and they could arrange for the appointment of children of the complainant against those vacancies and for that purpose, he would have to pay money to the Administrative Officer, Shri P.P. Chauhan and on that pretext, they induced the complainant to part with 17,000/- in all. 6. It is submitted by Shri Saleem Ahmed, learned ASC that during investigation, a plea was taken by the petitioners that ,000/- was given by respondent Np.2 to the petitioners as a loan and not for getting his son and daughter appointed in Rohini Courts and in support of this contention, a receipt was produced by the petitioners, which during investigation, turned out be forged. Therefore, in the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 419/420/406/34 IPC, Sections 468/193 IPC were added. It is submitted by the learned ASC that the receipt produced during investigation was sent for forensic examination and as per the opinion of the expert, the receipt is found to be fabricated in the hand-writing of petitioner No.2. 7. If the above allegations are true, the offence committed by the petitioners is grave. Petitioner No.1 admittedly is an Advocate. He, in capacity of Advocate, is expected to respect and preserve law but he in collusion with petitioner No.2 has not only cheated respondent No.2 for 17,000/- on the false pretext of giving illegal gratification to a public servant for getting son and daughter of respondent No.2 employed in the staff of Rohini Courts. Not only this, when the case was registered, in order to escape the prosecution, the petitioners also indulged in forging a receipt • ... to show that a sum of Rs.2,17 ,000/- was paid by respondent No.2 as a loan which receipt, on investigation, was found to be forged in the handwriting of petitioner No.2. If such like cases are allowed tc:> be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it would be nothing but putting the criminal law to a naught. Otherwise also, the quashing of FIR in such a grave offence would amount to letting loose unscrupulous persons on unsuspecting innocent persons who may approach the petitioner No.1 for getting his professional assistance to seek justice in the court of law . 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the process of law in exercise of the inherent powers under Sectiqn 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge for information. APRIL OS, 2011 pst jw: (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE