ORDER : Shri Krishna Kalra, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Sadhna Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Heard. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 533/12 registered with Police Station, Tukoganj, Indore, M. P. for alleged commission of offence under sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of the respondent No. 1 3. The Director of the respondent No. 1 Company had lodged the FIR stating that the petitioners No. 2 to 4 who are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 company had received goods worth Rs. 1,03,02,169/- from the respondent No. 1 Company for acting as agent to sale it to third parties and after selling the same they have misappropriated the amount without making the payment to respondent No. 1. When the respondent No. 1 had asked for return of the goods, the petitioners had said that the goods were returned through Meeth Roadways but no such goods were received by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioners had sent the forged and fabricated bilties, invoices and receipt of weigh bridge to the respondent No. 1 in this regard. In the FIR the commission of offence under section 420/467/468/471 by the petitioners was alleged. 4. The present M.Cr.C has been filed for quashing the FIR and the pending proceedings in pursuance to the FIR on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the dispute relating to the commercial transaction between the parties and now the dispute has been settled and the petitioners have paid the due amount to the respondent No. 1, therefore, continuation of the investigation in pursuance to the FIR and further criminal action would be an exercise in futility. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard. 6. Learned counsel who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 1 has not disputed the arguments advanced by learned counsel or petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard. 6. Learned counsel who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 1 has not disputed the arguments advanced by learned counsel or petitioner. She has further submitted that the amount has been received by the respondent No. 1 and that the Board of Directors and the respondent No. 1 has also decided to withdraw the complaint against the petitioners and have also informed the concerned police station in this regard. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the FIR was registered against the petitioners at the instance of the respondent No. 1 for the alleged offences on account of the dispute which had arisen due to the commercial transaction between the parties. The petitioners have placed on record the deed of settlement dated 29th September, 2012 Annexure P.6 arrived at between the parties which shows that the dispute has now been settled. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also admitted that by this deed of settlement the dispute between the parties has been settled. The respondent No. 1 has also produced the statement of account to show that the amount has been received by the respondent No. 1. The communication dated 5-1-2013 sent by the respondent No. 1 to the South Tukoganj police station has been filed which shows that the respondent No. 1 does not want to pursue the complaint and wants that the police should close the matter. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in JT 2008(9) SC 192 has taken the view that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing of the criminal proceedings when compromise is arrived at between the parties and consent terms are filed. In such a case continuance of the proceedings after the compromise would be a futile exercise. In such a case continuance of the proceedings after the compromise would be a futile exercise. In the matter of B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 while dealing with the proceeding under 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code the Supreme Court took the view that even if these offences are not compoundable that would not limit or affect the powers under section 482 and the powers conferred on the High Court and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India and that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320, Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the power of the High Court under section 482 of the Code. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Sharma vs. State and others, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 1619/2008 has held that :- "8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case". 9. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case". 9. Counsel for parties have also brought to then notice of this Court the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Punish Jindal vs. State and others, dated 6-4-2009 passed in W. P. (Cri.) 727/2008 wherein in some what similar circumstances the FIR and the proceedings in pursuance thereto were quashed. 10. Having considered the fact that in the present matter the FIR was lodged on account of the dispute relating to the commercial transaction between the parties and that now the dispute has been settled and the complainant respondent No. 1 does not want to pursue the proceedings against the petitioners and keeping in view the judgments noted above, I am of the view that continuation of the investigation and the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR in question would not be n the interest of justice and would be a futile exercise. In these circumstances, the FIR No. 533/12 and the proceedings in pursuance thereto are hereby quashed. 11. The M.Cr.C. is accordingly allowed. C. C as per rules.