JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing FIR No.81/2014 of Police Station Mandore, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent was in relation to some financial transaction wherein the petitioner advanced a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent No.2 and the petitioner repaid the said amount through cheque which was not honoured by the Bank and, therefore, the respondent No.2 has got registered the impugned FIR. It is also contended that now the petitioner has already paid the whole due amount to the respondent No.2 and they both amicably settled the dispute between them, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and all the proceedings related to it may be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also verified that the dispute between the parties have already been settled and the respondent No.2 has already received the whole amount from the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 5. The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner to the effect that he advanced a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner and in lieu of that, the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 12.12.2013 to him. It is alleged that when the respondent No.2 has presented the said cheque in the concerned Bank, the same was not honoured and returned with a remark "account closed". 6. In view of the above circumstances, the respondent No.2 registered the impugned FIR while alleging that the petitioner has committed cheating with him. 7. From the above facts, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is in relation to financial transaction wherein the petitioner has failed to repay the amount of loan which was advanced by the respondent No.2. Now the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute and all the due amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 does not want to press the allegations of cheating levelled against the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in IT 2012(9) SC 426 has held as below:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioner can be quashed. 10. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.81/2014 of Police Station Mandore, Jodhpur is quashed.Petition allowed. *******