Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint being I.C.R. No. 476 of 2009 registered with Umra Police Station. 2. A complaint was filed by the present Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners before Umra Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 384, 120-B and 114 of IP Code. At the end of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, not a single document terming to be false document or forged document is recovered from the petitioners and, since no case is made out against them, this petition is filed for quashing of the said complaint. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1-State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.M. for Mr. A.B. Munshi for the Respondent No. 2. 4. It is submitted by Learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, that matter is settled between the parties and now the complainant has no grievances against the present petitioners accused and hence, continuing with the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and would be harassment to the parties. It is therefore requested that the complaint may be quashed. He has relied on various judgments delivered by this Court in Cri.Misc.Appln.No. 2280 of 2011 on 21-2-2011; Cri.Misc.Appln.No. 10199 of 2010 on 3-3-2011, Cri.Misc.Appln.No. 2018 of 2011 on 3-3-2011 and Cri.Misc.Appln.No. 2211 of 2011 on 4-3-2011. He has also relied on following reported decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court : i) (2008) 18 SCC page 1 in the case of Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others; ii) (2008) 9 SCC page 677 in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; iii) (2007) 12 SCC page 90 in the case of Nalini Sshankaran and Others vs. Neelkanth Mahadeo Kamble and others; iv) (2007) 12 SCC page 93 in the case of T. Vengama Naidu vs. T. Dora Swamy Naidu and Others; and v) (2003) 4 SCC page 675 in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another. 5. This Court has gone through all the judgments delivered by this Court as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners. 5. This Court has gone through all the judgments delivered by this Court as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners. If no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners or it is seen that the dispute is of purely civil nature, Court can quash the complaint, if thinks fit. However, when prima facie ingredients of offence is made out in the complaint, complaint cannot be quashed. 6. Reliance is placed on the cases of Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439; Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC page 351; U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi and Another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 147 and (2009) 8 SCC page 751 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and another wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is no fixed rule for quashing of criminal complaint. It has been held by catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court that as far as criminal matter is concerned, it should be decided keeping in mind the facts of each case and so, there is no straight jacket formula to decide the criminal case. 7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that one accused is arrested and his bail application is rejected by the Sessions Court as well as by this Court and he is in jail. Charge sheet is also filed before the trial Court. Moreover, charge is also framed and trial has already commenced and it is likely to be completed in near future. It is pertinent to note that prima facie, alleged offences punishable under Sections. 465, 467, 468, 384, 120-B and 114 of IP Code are made out against the petitioners. Even assuming that complainant would turn hostile in Court or would not support the case of the prosecution once trial commences, relying upon other evidence and taking into consideration the documents, Court can impose conviction. It is settled legal position that once an accused is convicted by the Court, settlement is a good ground for awarding lesser sentence. Even assuming that complainant would turn hostile in Court or would not support the case of the prosecution once trial commences, relying upon other evidence and taking into consideration the documents, Court can impose conviction. It is settled legal position that once an accused is convicted by the Court, settlement is a good ground for awarding lesser sentence. However, since the trial has already commenced, this Court would not like to exercise its discretion for quashing the complaint at this juncture. Hence, the present petitioners would not be entitled to any benefit out of the judgments cited by his counsel. 8. In view of the above, this petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Looking to the fact that one of the accused is in jail, trial of the Case arising out of I.C.R. No. 476 of 2009 registered with Umra Police Station is ordered to be completed as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. The observations made by this Court in this judgment being made for the purpose of deciding this petition shall not prejudice the parties in trial. 10. Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the trial by fax. P P P P P