Judgment :- This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-A.1 to A.5 to quash further proceedings in Cr.No.923 of 2006 PS Panjagutta against them. 2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners-A.1 to A.5 and 2 others alleging the offences under Section 420 and 406 r/w 34 IPC. The said complaint was referred to police for investigation and the same was registered as Cr.No.923 of 2006 of Panjagutta PS. According to the first respondent-complainant, he participated in 'Ya.who' programme organized by A.1 to A.3 and sponsored by A.6 and won TCL Washing machine in Episode No.8 and received the same after paying gift tax of Rs.5049/- and that he further participated in Episode No.9 and won prize of D' Damas Diamond Necklace Set worth Rs.2,50,000/- and he received it after paying Rs.76,500/- towards gift tax. It is alleged that the jewellery was found only worth about Rs.50,000/- but not Rs.2,50,000/- and as such the complainant was cheated. He further alleges that the gift tax paid by him was misappropriated. 3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent are heard. Records are perused. 4. According to the petitioners, even before lodging FIR, they have duly remitted the gift tax to the authorities concerned on 6.5.2006 and as such there has been no misappropriation by the petitioners. It is also further contended by the petitioners and not disputed by the respondents that the matter has been settled amicably out of the Court and the terms of the settlement have also duly been complied by the petitioners and the complainant also gave a letter to the Panjagutta Police on 16.11.2006 duly intimating the factum of settlement of the dispute and also requesting to close the case. The complainant alleges that the police did not however close the case. The complainant alleges that the police did not however close the case. It is also not disputed that the petitioners-A.1 to A.5, first respondent-complainant together filed a petition under Section 20(1)(i) of Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement and the Court directed to refer the case to the Lok Adalat only to the extent of offence under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC observing that further offence under Section 406 IPC is non-compoundable and hence, it cannot be referred. 5. It is not disputed that the matter has been amicably settled out of Court. It is also borne out by vouchers and receipts filed by the petitioners and also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioners have remitted a sum of Rs.81,549/- towards gift tax pertaining to the first respondent to the concerned authorities on 6.5.2006 itself. The complaint is filed subsequently on 13.11.2006. A copy of the letter dated 16.11.2006 filed along with the material papers shows that the first respondent-complainant stated that the dispute has been settled amicably with D' Damas, sponsor of the programme and that he has no grievance against the petitioners and that he would undertake to cooperate with the accused and with the police in filing petitions for withdrawal or compounding of the case and if necessary to attend Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter. The petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.9107 of 2006 before the learned Magistrate requesting them to refer Cr.No.923 of 2006 of Panjagutta PS to Lok Adalat for settlement. In the affidavit filed by the first respondent herein in the said Crl.M.P., copy of which is filed as material papers, he stated that the amount of Rs.81,549/- received from him by the first respondent towards gift tax has been duly remitted to the authorities concerned vide challan dated 6.5.2006 and gift tax has been paid to I.T. Department. He further stated that he did not entrust any property to A.1 to A.8, which can be said to have been misappropriated and thus no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC and he settled the matter and he has no claim against the petitioners. He further stated that he did not entrust any property to A.1 to A.8, which can be said to have been misappropriated and thus no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC and he settled the matter and he has no claim against the petitioners. By order dated 25.11.2006 the learned Magistrate referred the matter to Lok Adalat insofar as the compoundable offence under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC concerned and decline to refer the matter pertaining to the offence under Section 406 IPC, which is not compoundable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter, wherein it was held as follows: "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation." It was further held as follows: "The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice". 7. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice". 7. Relying on the principles laid down by the Larger Bench in the above decision and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein, the dispute has in fact been settled out of the Court amicably by the parties and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could not refer the matter insofar as it relates to offence under Section 406 IPC to Lok Adalat for recording settlement only on the technical ground that the said offence was not compoundable, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the said offence under Section 406 IPC. In order to effectuate the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and this secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of court and to do complete justice between the parties, it is held that further proceedings in Cr.No.923 of 2006 of Panjagutta PS registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the first respondent herein are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed insofar as the petitioners-A.1 to A.5 are concerned. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed accordingly.