HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.965 of 2010 Om Prakash Dixit, S/o Late Shiv Vi Dixit, Aged about 68 years, R/o Gayari Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Gol Bazar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: Jairam Das Hablani, S/o Shri Sakhavat Ram Hablani, (Power of Attorney Holder for Smt. Vineeta Hablani), R/o House No.C—401, Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardeeh Raipur (C.G.) ' Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure} P resent: M. nish Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. r Ma M U. Singh Chandel, Panel Lawyerfor the State/respondent No.1. r. K. Single Bencn: Hon’ble Mr. TQP. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (3-1-2011) 1. Heard. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), the petitioner has prayed for quashment o FIR registered vide Crime No.86/2007 by Police Station Gol Bazaar, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 & 468 read with Section 34 of the i.P.c. . s per contents of the FIR and other documents, one sale deed has/i been executed in favour of the petitioner herein in the name of one Smt. Vineeta Hablani, but Smt. Vineeta Hablani has not sold the land to the petitioner herein. At the instance of the power of attorney holderiof Smt. Vineeta Hablani i.e. respondent No.2 herein, the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the petitioner herein and the witnesses to the documents. . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has entered into compromise With Smt Vineeta Hablani through her power of attorney holder and therefore any enqUIry on the baSIs o las t PETITIONER: , { f A f aforesaid FIR would be abuse of the process of the ourt. Therefore, C the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed. Learned eounsel/ ‘ w H placed reliance in the matter of Manoj Sharma v. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1 in which on the basis of compromise, theSupreme 'Court has quashed the criminal proceeding pending before the Court and has als‘o held that in case of dispute relating to the witnesses, if the complainant has decided not to pursue the matter, the FIR may be quashed On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the Investigation is in progress and after filing of charge sheet,.the-parties may ftle appropriate petition, before the Court forp dropping of proceeding in the light of compromise. _As per the documents aggrieved Smt Vineeta Hablani or her power of attorney holder has not filed any petition for quashment of FIR even Smt Vineeta Hablani has not entered into compromise directly In absence of anything or any claim on behalf of the aggrieved party, l do not find any ground for interference in terms of Section 482 of the Code. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, in Iimine. I.A.No.1 stands disposed of Sdl- T.P. Sharma judge . . i Soma . ;