JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J. 1. The applicants have filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 1119103620061 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.N. Marfatia for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Ronit Joy, learned advocate for the original complainant and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the Respondent-State of Gujarat through video conference. Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Ronit Joy on behalf of original complainant and the same be placed on record. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted to the Court that the amicable settlement is arrived at between the Complainant and the applicants Accused and the Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2020 as well as duly sworn affidavit of the respondent no. 2 to that effect are also placed on record at Annexure-P-3 and P-4 respectively. He further submitted that the applicants Accused has no any antecedents and therefore, the discretion may be exercised by this Hon'ble Court and the Application may be allowed and FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. 3. (A) Learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon four different authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, viz. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narender Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, (iii) a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973 and (iv) Arun Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 736 . 4. Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has placed on record Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2020 as well as duly sworn affidavit of the respondent no. 2. The same are read thus: “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” This settlement agreement (hereinafter the agreement) is entered into on this 29th Day of July 2020 at Ahmedabad between Scholar Alley Private Limited, with CIN U74999DL2017PTC321608 and having its having its office at 11th Floor, Block C, Building 8, DLF Cyber City DLF Phase II, Grugram-122002, through its director Ms. 2. The same are read thus: “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” This settlement agreement (hereinafter the agreement) is entered into on this 29th Day of July 2020 at Ahmedabad between Scholar Alley Private Limited, with CIN U74999DL2017PTC321608 and having its having its office at 11th Floor, Block C, Building 8, DLF Cyber City DLF Phase II, Grugram-122002, through its director Ms. Prinyka Gere (hereinafter referred to as the First party which expression shall, unless its repugnant to the context or miming thereof, be deemed to mean and includes its successors affiliates and permitted assigns) And Mrs. Pooja Dave, Wife of Mr. Rakeshbhai Dave, trading as M/s Pooja Caterers having principal place of business at A/601, suvas Residency, Opp. Satyagrah Bunglows, Nr. Gangotri Circle, Nikol, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat having PAN NO. BXTPP3337A (hereinafter referred to as “second Party” which expression shall, unless it is repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, be deemed to mean and include its successors, affiliates and permitted assigns) (First Party and Second Party hereinafter are collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as such) WHEREAS: (a) The First Party is engaged in technology enabled student housing business. In essence the First Party procures immoveable properties and upon undertaking renovation if required provides the same as student accomodation with several amenities and facilities. The First Party operates under the brand name (Oxfordcaps). (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. xxx 7. xxx 8. xxx 9. xxx 10. xxx 11. xxx 12. xxx 13. xxx 14. xxx 15. xxx 16. xxx 17. No supplement modification or amendments of this settlement agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by the parties. 18. This settlement agreement shall be signed and duplicate each of which shall be deemed to be original.” Affidavit of Respondent No. 2 “AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ORI COMPLAINANT) ATTESTING TO SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT I, Poojaben Dave, Wife of Rakeshbhai Dipakbhai, resident of A/601, Suvas Residency, Opp. Satyagrah Bungalows, Nr. This settlement agreement shall be signed and duplicate each of which shall be deemed to be original.” Affidavit of Respondent No. 2 “AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ORI COMPLAINANT) ATTESTING TO SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT I, Poojaben Dave, Wife of Rakeshbhai Dipakbhai, resident of A/601, Suvas Residency, Opp. Satyagrah Bungalows, Nr. Gangotri Circle, Nikol, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat, Respondent No. 2 in the captioned application, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (1) I say and submit that I am the original complainant in the FIR bearing No. 1119103620061 of 2020, registered with the Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, on 15.07.2020 against the Petitioners herein for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is the subject matter of the captioned petition (hereinafter referred to as the “said FIR”). (2) I state on oath and submit that the entire dispute between me and the Petitioners including all persons named in the said FIR has been amicably settled and now no dispute or misunderstanding survives. (3) I further state and submit that all disputes between me and the Petitioners including Mr. Vishal B. Harmal (original accused no. 6 in the said FIR) has been amicably settled and therefore I give my consent and have no objection if the said FIR lodged by me and assailed by the Petitioners in this Special Criminal Application is quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court against the Petitioners and Mr. Vishal B. Harmal (original accused no. 6 in the said FIR) along with all the consequential proceedings as prayed for in the captioned petition. (4) I further state on oath and submit that I have entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Petitioner No. 9 herein dated 9.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Settlement Agreement”). Broadly the settlement agreement is to the effect that the parties to this Petition No. 9 shall pay the settlement amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Only) in accordance to the manner provided in the said Settlement Agreement. I further state that the Petitioner No. 9 has already paid 25% of the settlement amount upon signing of the said Settlement Agreement. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Only) in accordance to the manner provided in the said Settlement Agreement. I further state that the Petitioner No. 9 has already paid 25% of the settlement amount upon signing of the said Settlement Agreement. 25% of the of the settlement amount is to be paid by the Petitioner No. 9 upon filing of the Special Criminal Application and the balance 50% upon the said FIR being quashed by this Hon’ble Court. Pursuant to the said Settlement Agreement, the Respondent No. 2 has accepted to provide its consent for quashing of the said FIR withdraw all criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The parties have further agreed to have withdrawn against each other all past and present claims, controversies, demands, actions or causes of action arising from Agreements executed between the Petitioner No. 9 and the Respondent No. 2. A copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 29.7.2020 entered into between the parties herein has been annexed with the Special Criminal Application as Annexure P 3. (5) In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions/terms of the said Settlement Agreement by the parties therein, I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court deems fit to quash and set aside the said F.I.R. registered at the behest of the Respondent No. 2 bearing FIR bearing No, 1119103620061 of 2020, registered with the Navrangpura Police Station. Ahmedabad City, on 15.7.2020 against the Petitioners herein and Mr. Vishal B. Harnal (original accused no. 6 in the said FIR) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of The Indian Penal Code along with all the consequential proceedings. (6) I state that this affidavit is filed by me in complete soundness of mind. without any pressure. coercion, duress or compulsion rather freely and voluntarily and on my own accord and the statements made hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.” 5. Learned Advocate for the applicants and learned advocate for the original complainant have submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2020 as well as affidavit which are produced on record. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicants and learned advocate for the original complainant have submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2020 as well as affidavit which are produced on record. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed. 6. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred the authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (i) in case of Narender Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed as under: “8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are un-compoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary powers to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of theses powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.” 12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavor stand on a 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. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely decoity under special statute, like the prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity. The mere settlement between he parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such henious crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.” (ii) The Coordinate Bench (Coram: K.M. Thaker, J.) in a judgment in case of Iqbal Dawood Hala vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - S.25(1) (c) - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - S. 135(1) - quashing of the criminal complaint- dispute between the parties is of private and personal nature - complainant has admitted that the complainant and original accused i.e. the applicants have voluntarily settled the dispute - complainant - respondent No. 2 has also admitted that he does not want to prosecute the complaint further qua the applicants - held no fruitful purpose will not be served in continuing the prosecution of the complaint - fit case for exercising powers u/s. 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of Court - criminal complaint quashed - application allowed.” (iii) The Coordinate Bench (Coram: R.M. Chhaya, J.) in a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120B, 307, 326 - Arms Act, 1959 - 25(1)(b), 25(1)(a) - quashing of complaint - applicants was not named as an accused in the complaint but was shown as witness - however later on investigating officer joined him as an accused - compromise and settlement between the parties - both the sides present before the Court - complainant filed an affidavit in support of the applicants/accused and confirmed about the settlement - denial of allegation by the complainant against the applicants - no objection to the complainant if complaint is quashed qua applicants only - case of Narinder Singh (Supra) referred and relied upon - fit case to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code - complaint qua applicants quashed - application allowed.” (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arun Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary and Another, (2020) 3 SCC 736 , has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal wherein quashing petition was allowed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it was held that when there is abuse of process of law the FIR is required to be quashed. (v) The Coordinate Bench (Coram: Sonia Gokani, J.) in a judgment in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJELHC 240101 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2019) has observed as under: “27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. Sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.” 8. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah vs. State of Gujarat are fully applicable to the present case. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah vs. State of Gujarat are fully applicable to the present case. In addition to that this Court has also referred to the latest order passed by the co-ordinate Bench (Coram: Sonia Gokani, J.) in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 and therefore this Court is of the view that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes in such offences, there is no requirement of trial and same would be against the ends of justice. Therefore, FIR is required to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the applicants, it transpires that the offence is registered upon the applicants Accused for the offences punishable under 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The offences are not so grave which invite the latest law of the land that whenever there is serious offences in that case the High Court may not exercise discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but in the present case, the offences are minor offences. Further, there is amicable settlement arrived at between the complainant and the accused persons by way of Settlement Agreement as well as affidavit, therefore, it would be futile exercise if the trial shall take place and the purpose of the same would not be served and therefore in humble view of this Court, it would be just and proper to quash the aforesaid FIR. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the further development that took place in the matter as come forward by way of an Affidavit by the Respondent No. 2- Original Complainant, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that now the cause does not survive and therefore the FIR may be quashed and set aside. 11. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the further development that took place in the matter as come forward by way of an Affidavit by the Respondent No. 2- Original Complainant, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that now the cause does not survive and therefore the FIR may be quashed and set aside. 11. This Court has referred to the land mark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 SCC Online SC 1189 and in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 . Normally, this Court would not entertain the quashing petition in serious offences like offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC. But, in the present case offences which are registered upon the applicants having lesser punishment of not serious one which is discussed earlier. Therefore, with respect, latest law is not applicable to the present case. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. FIR No. 1119103620061 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and concerned Police Station through e-mail/fax.