Judgment ( 1. ) With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. ( 2. ) Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing FIR in connection with Crime No. 296/09 registered at Police Station University against him for offence punishable under sections 420,467,468,471 IPC. ( 3. ) Facts in compendium are that respondent No. 2 Ravindra Pratap Singh is Vice President of Streling Agro Industries and petitioner is agent of Gonanja Port-Folio Ltd. Company. It is alleged that petitioner persuaded respondent No. 2 to invest money in mutual funds and share market, as a result of which respondent gave Rs. 8,23,000/- by cheque and cash for investing in share-market and also gave Rs. 12 lacs to invest in mutual funds. Petitioner cheated respondent No. 2 by misappropriating Rs. 13,97,900/- in a period from 5.11.07 to 1.4.09 by not depositing the amount in mutual funds and share-market. Respondent thereafter lodged a report against petitioner at Police Station University and Crime No. 296/09 has been registered against petitioner for above mentioned offence, giving rise to present petition. ( 4. ) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is having business relations with respondent No. 2 and owing to some misunderstanding the respondent has lodged the report against petitioner and now the matter has been settled between the parties and one agreement has been executed to that effect. Hence prayed for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 296/09 lodged against petitioner. ( 5. ) Respondent No. 2 Ravindra Pratap Singh, who is present in the Court, has fairly admitted with respect to final settlement between him and petitioner by way of agreement. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew this Courts attention to a citation in Jagdish Chanana and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1968 . In that case also, parties have settled the matter and dispute was personal in nature arising out of commercial transactions. It was observed by Honble apex Court that no public policy is involved in the transactions and one of terms of being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be and application was allowed and FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed. Relying upon the above citation learned counsel for petitioner prayed for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No. 296/09. ( 7. Relying upon the above citation learned counsel for petitioner prayed for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No. 296/09. ( 7. ) Censidered the application (I.A.No. 2805/10) filed by both the parties. ( 8. ) Adverting to homogeneous matter, in Devendra and others v. State of U.P. and another, (2009) 8 SCC 495, where there was a dispute between co- sharers in relation to their respective shares and certain share was sold by some co-sharers to third party and the dispute was purely civil in nature, it has been held by apex Court that initiation of proceeding under sections 420,467,468 and 469 IPC in such case was not justified and therefore proceedings were quashed. ( 9. ) In view of the above settled position of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and FIR concerning Crime No. 296/09 registered at Police Station University against petitioner is quashed.