ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order of cognizance dated 15th October, passed in Complaint Case No. 1434 © of 2001 for offences u/s 406, 420, 120(B) IPC. 3. In this case, it has been alleged in the complaint petition, on 2nd March 1998 petitioners were appointed as C & F Agent of Rajasthan of M/s Dhriti Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. by O.P. No. 2 and handed over the letter of appointment at the residence of the in-laws of the complainant. As per the complaint petition, the complainant was to make investment through raw materials/finished goods of Rs.17.5 lacs at any point of time and the accused persons (petitioners) were to supply the finished goods. It has further been alleged that the O.P. No. 2 had made several payments for the supply of raw materials to different suppliers of accused-petitioner on their instruction, as per the statement of account, complainant, O.P. No. 2 had already paid Rs. 30,24,950.00 which was outstanding against the accused persons as on 15th June 2000. He has further alleged that the accused persons had confirmed the balance amount of Rs.14,46,901.30 p as outstanding against them and the complainant had requested on several occasions for return of the said money but dishonestly the petitioners had defalcated the complainant’s money. 4. It appears from the record that the petitioners had challenged the order of cognizance before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17815 of 2002 and this Court after considering the evidence on the record quashed the order of cognizance holding that the court at Patna had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the matter went upto Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 427 of 2008: Cr. Appeal No. 1214 of 2009 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the materials on the record set aside the order of this Court vide order dated 14th July 2009. 5. During the pendency of this case, parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, as the petitioners have already paid the outstanding dues of Rs.12.5 lacs to the complainant O.P.No.2 and the same has been accepted by his counsel before this Court. 6. 5. During the pendency of this case, parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, as the petitioners have already paid the outstanding dues of Rs.12.5 lacs to the complainant O.P.No.2 and the same has been accepted by his counsel before this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as parties have already settled the dispute, it will be sheer wastage of time to allow this proceeding to continue. Counsel for the O.P. also supported the contention and submitted that O.P.No.2 is no longer interested to prosecute the case. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2012 (1) PLJR 133 (Shiji v. Radhika) has observed that in a non-compoundable cases, though the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding, but the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding in the event it appears to the Court that the case between the parties is completely a private dispute and there is no chance of recording conviction against accused persons in that event continuation proceeding will be sheer wastage of time of the court. Para 13 of the said judgment is as follows: Para 13: It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While the Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Curt may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” 8. As it appears that both the parties have entered into settlement on making payment of outstanding dues of money, this Court feels that it will be an unnecessary prolongation of the case without any fruitful result. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in view of Shiji case (supra), the impugned order of cognizance is quashed and this petition is allowed. The Dasti order filed on behalf of petitioners, may be kept on the record.