JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. The petitioners in essence seeks quashment of GR Case No.4(S) 08 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong on the ground of having settled the disputes with the complainant (respondent No.2). 2. The offences allegedly committed being non-compoundable therefore, in pursuance of the settlement reached amongst the petitioners and proforma respondent, the learned Trial Court could not accept the same for closure of criminal case, in view of bar under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 3. section 320 CrPC, 1973 does not operate as a bar for invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, 1973 and exercise thereof, hence, the instant petition. 4. The petitioners claimed to be the shareholders of Shebawheels Private Limited Company, having its registered office at Ziakurvilla, Bishnupur, Shillong, whereas, the respondent No.2 claimed to be its Managing Director. 5. The respondent No.2 lodged a report before the Police-in-Charge, Rilbong Police Beat House on 08.11.2004 against the petitioners No.1 and 2 to the effect: (i) that they in connivance not only dishonestly, fraudulently, removed, concealed the properties of M/s Shebawheels and siphoned huge amounts of funds from the company, but also indulged in fraud and forgery of documents filed with the Government authorities with a purpose to falsely establish their superior shareholding in the company and to usurp it by illegal means. (ii) In fact, the petitioner No.1 was employed by the company as Accounts Officer in its Shillong office in the year 1979 he had gained complete trust and confidence. He introduced petitioner No.2 as Chartered Accountant. The petitioner No.1 being in charge of the entire finances of the company started siphoning of funds on one pretext or the other in the name of petitioner No.2. Besides cash withdrawals, the petitioners No.1 and 2 coaxed Gaurav Rathore (son of the complainant) signing one cheque after another for withdrawing cash for meeting expenses of the company. (iii) The complainant while leaving Shillong had entrusted his son with the cheque books duly signed by him for the purpose of running the company affairs. Petitioners influenced Gaurav Rathore who was the other signatory on the cheques. Besides illegal cash withdrawals, they started diverting the funds of the company to their personal accounts. The illegal siphoning and misappropriation of funds from the company by the petitioners No.1 and 2 is over Rs. 1.73 crores. Petitioners influenced Gaurav Rathore who was the other signatory on the cheques. Besides illegal cash withdrawals, they started diverting the funds of the company to their personal accounts. The illegal siphoning and misappropriation of funds from the company by the petitioners No.1 and 2 is over Rs. 1.73 crores. Thereafter, the petitioners No.1 and 2 misused the blank cheques by passing those on to various companies and allowing those to get dishonoured. The petitioner No.1 has shown some income from the company for the year 2001-02 as major shareholders of the company. Upon careful perusal of the balance sheet and the Auditors report, the complainant realized that his signatures as well as the signatures of his wife appearing on these documents did not belong to him and his wife as such, were forged. His son informed that the signatures on the income tax return did not belong to him. In fact, Dileep Kumar Jain (petitioner No.1) has asked him to put his signatures on the returns as well as on the cheques. (iv) It is further mentioned in the report that the petitioners No.1 and 2 had already sold their shares held by them in the name of their relatives, companies or associate companies and the transfer deeds for the same were received by M/s Shebawheels from different buyers and shares are transferred in the name of purchasers on 15.08.2002, 23.10.2002 and 30.11.2002. The petitioners were still maintaining that they are shareholders of the company. (v) In the detailed report as precisely referred hereinabove, it has been finally mentioned therein that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have not only stolen the cheques, books of accounts, other documents, record of the company and illegally retained them but also indulged in huge siphoning of funds from the company besides having committed offences of fraud and forgery of signatures in the documents including income tax return of the company for the year 2001-02 filed with the Income Tax Department with illegal and ill-motivated design of usurping and taking control of the company by presenting false and misleading picture of the shareholding in the company. 6. On the basis of the detailed report of the complainant, Laban PS Case No. 63(11)04 was registered. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet No.1/08 dated 05.01.2008 as against the petitioners No.1 and 2 was submitted. 6. On the basis of the detailed report of the complainant, Laban PS Case No. 63(11)04 was registered. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet No.1/08 dated 05.01.2008 as against the petitioners No.1 and 2 was submitted. However, it was mentioned therein that additional charge sheet was required to be filed later. The supplementary charge sheet dated 13.10.2010 was also filed before the learned Magistrate wherein, same was registered as CR Case No.4(S) of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 408/415/418/420/423/424/464/467/468/471/477-A/120 (B) IPC. 7. The case being pending for last 10 years is still at the infancy stage. The trial as yet has not commenced. Questions of framing charge till date has not been decided. The delay in commencing the trial is circumstantial as reflected in the interim orders recorded by the learned Magistrate from time to time, attributable to the parties and mostly to the other circumstances. 8. In the month of February 2018, Settlement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by Party No.1 (M/s Shebawheels Private Limited, through its Director Mr. Gaurav Rathore duly authorized by board resolution dated 17.01.2018 in his individual capacity as well as in the capacity of his being the duly constituted Attorney of Sheebawheels (P) Ltd.), Party No.2 (petitioner No.2) in his individual capacity as well as in the capacity of being the duly constituted Attorney of all the petitioners in Company Petition No.45/2003 which was filed before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and Party No.3 M/s Golden Computech (P) Ltd., through its Director Shri Rajesh Daga. 9. Before coming to the acceptability or otherwise of the settlement so as to persuade the Court to quash the criminal proceedings, it shall be pertinent to clarify that the petitioners had filed Company Petition No.45 of 2003 before the Company Law Board, New Delhi alleging therein oppression and mismanagement. The said petition has been disposed of by the Company Board vide its order dated 27.05.2015 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Dissatisfied therewith, the petitioners filed Company Appeal No.2 of 2015 before this Court which is pending. 10. The Party No.3 M/s Golden Computech (P) Ltd. had also instituted a Company Petition No.18 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court seeking winding up of the company (M/s Sheba wheels Private Limited). 11. Dissatisfied therewith, the petitioners filed Company Appeal No.2 of 2015 before this Court which is pending. 10. The Party No.3 M/s Golden Computech (P) Ltd. had also instituted a Company Petition No.18 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court seeking winding up of the company (M/s Sheba wheels Private Limited). 11. The cases under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were filed against the Party No.1 (M/s Sheba wheels Private Limited), which are stated to have been disposed of. 12. It is in the aforesaid background that the parties have settled their inter-se disputes, as such, have executed a document under the style Settlement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding copy has been placed on record. Perusal of which reveals that the parties with the object of giving final quietus to several litigations and disputes pending between them have agreed to settle the matter for a total sum of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- (Rupees two crores and forty five lakhs) payable to the Second and Third Party. Second Party will further distribute it to the respective parties proportionately towards their respective claims. Based on the settlement in terms whereof, the modes and methods for payment have been worked out for withdrawal of all cases pending between the parties. 13. Two important paragraphs 1 and 7 of the agreement are relevant to be quoted for just disposal of the instant petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973: "1. That the parties of the second part and the party of the third part hereby surrender and give up all their alleged claims to the right/interest/title/shareholding of M/s Shebawheels Pvt. Ltd. and further relinquishes any alleged claim in the shareholding of the company or any other claim/s in the said company. 7. That the party of the first part hereby undertake to sign the affidavits/relevant documents, to completely co-operate with the parties of the second part and to appear before the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong, for giving their no objection for quashing of the FIR No.6(11)04 registered before P.S. Laban, District East Khasi Hills, Shillong as Party of the First Part left with no grievances against party of Second and Third Part." 14. Keeping in view the detailed settlement, the modes and methods of payment then position of the petitioners not to claim their right as shareholders. Keeping in view the detailed settlement, the modes and methods of payment then position of the petitioners not to claim their right as shareholders. Further, the position of the company being a private limited company, question arises as to whether criminal case pending can be quashed? 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of "Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai & ors v. State of Gujarat & anr" reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and submits that it is a fit case for invoking inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973 so as to help the parties to tide over the hectic litigations. Para 16 of the judgment is beneficial to be quoted: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 16. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 16. In opposition learned PP appearing for the State would submit that the offences committed are heinous which have direct impact on the society therefore, applying the broader principles laid down in the judgment as relied upon, there is no scope for quashing the proceedings. 17. The principle 16.8 squarely covers the case of the petitioners because the offences as alleged to have been committed arise from commercial transaction. In the given fact situation i.e. claim of the petitioners to be the shareholders then filed a company petition before the Company Law Board and a petition of third party for winding up of the company suggests that essentially the disputes have civil flavour. The position as mentioned in the detailed settlement deed clearly warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings so as to help in withdrawing the company appeal as well as petition for winding up the company same will help in implementing the settlement deed. Civil dispute concerning a private company limited has to be encouraged, the settlement in effect will give the parties a chance to get rid of long drawn litigation. Closing the criminal case shall have no impact on the societal interest nor shall have any impact on the financial health of the State. 18. Having due regard to the nature of the disputes between the parties relating to the affairs of the private limited company coupled with the claim of the petitioners (accused) as shareholders in the company, their acts in such a capacity would not attract the applicability of the offences as alleged. 19. The statements of the respective parties to the criminal case have been recorded by the learned Trial Court suggesting that the parties have settled their inter-se disputes therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings i.e. GR Case No.4(S) of 2008 pending before the learned Magistrate, Shillong will not be in the interest of justice. The ultimate object, of all the proceedings before the Courts of law, is to do justice and to advance cause of justice. The ultimate object, of all the proceedings before the Courts of law, is to do justice and to advance cause of justice. By quashing the criminal proceedings of the said case, cause of justice would be advanced as both the parties involved in connection with the private company affairs will be relieved of litigation and mental agony. 20. By quashing the said criminal case in the background of the litigation between the parties neither social interest would be affected nor financial health of the State will be affected. In view of the broader principles summarised by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, in my opinion it is a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers which the Court is clothed with under section 482 CrPC, 1973. 21. Petition succeeds, criminal case No.4(S)08 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong for last 10 years being at the infancy stage is quashed. The learned Trial Court shall accordingly close the pending criminal proceedings. 22. Disposed of as above. 23. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information.