ORDER : 1. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioner with a prayer for quashing of impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings thereof, qua the accused-petitioner only. 2. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, that a complaint was filed against the respondent No. 2 and others, which resulted into registration of F.I.R. No. 0110/2018 at Police Station Ranibagh Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 of I.P.C. It has further been submitted that on complaint of the respondent No. 2, impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 1001/2016 came to be registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. against the petitioner and another. It has also been submitted that during the proceedings under F.I.R. registered at Police Station Ranibagh, Delhi against the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. During trial, the respondent No. 2 through his brother-Ashutosh Bansal has settled all his grievances with the petitioner and the company M/s. Gomtesh Promoters Private Limited (Now Gomtesh Promoters LLP) vide MOU dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-2) and in view of this MOU, the respondent No. 2 was granted regular bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner that when the respondent No. 2 was on bail, a controversy regarding the payment by the respondent No. 2, had taken place against which another settlement/agreement dated 06.02.2021 (Annexure-3) between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been arrived before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Court, Delhi, wherein it was agreed that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 will cooperate with each other in getting their respective F.I.R. quashed before the concerned Court. It has further been contended that in view of settlements dated 25.10.2019 and 06.02.2021, F.I.R. bearing No. 110/2018 registered at Police Station Ranibagh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 of I.P.C. was quashed by the High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 24.03.2021 against the respondent No. 2. It has further been contended that in view of settlements dated 25.10.2019 and 06.02.2021, F.I.R. bearing No. 110/2018 registered at Police Station Ranibagh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420/34 of I.P.C. was quashed by the High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 24.03.2021 against the respondent No. 2. It has also been contended that the dispute between the parties have amicably been settled and no useful purpose will be served by continuing with F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) against the petitioner, whereas the respondent No. 2 wants to proceed with the present F.I.R. against the accused-persons other-than the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings pending qua the petitioner only may also be quashed. 4. In rejoinder, during the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, that after quashing of F.I.R. bearing No. 110/2018 registered at Police Station Ranibagh, Delhi by the petitioner against the complainant, the complainant with the mala-fide intention has refused to co-operate with the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R. bearing No. 1001/2016 and has filed reply to the present petition, as such the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of agreement/settlement executed between them at the Mediation Centre, Delhi. It has further been submitted that the accused-petitioner has already complied with all the terms and conditions of MOU as well as agreement executed between the complainant and accused-petitioner by withdrawing all the cases filed by him against the complainant. It has also been submitted that after quashing of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner against the complainant, on the basis of compromise, the complainant in collusion with the Investigating Officer has served notice to the petitioner. 5. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted factual report, which is taken on record and further opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, has submitted that the respondent could take possession of the original security slips only after making a request with Delhi Police Authorities and the respondent was shocked to know that the original security slips were forged as the same were filled with different names by the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, has submitted that the respondent could take possession of the original security slips only after making a request with Delhi Police Authorities and the respondent was shocked to know that the original security slips were forged as the same were filled with different names by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the contents of Para-6 of the petition do not need any reply to the extent that the settlement/agreement dated 06.02.2021 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. During settlement, no receipts of payment were delivered to the respondent. The respondent has entered into a settlement with the petitioner but the same was done due to pressure/tactics played by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that MOU and settlement cannot come in the way of impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings, as the present case is a fit case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy, as the petitioner and the co-accused have conspired against the respondent No. 2 by breaching his trust and fraudulently forging and using the security slips for reaping illegal monetary benefits against the respondent No. 2 as well as other innocent people. Therefore, the proceedings should continue against the petitioner and the co-accused, as the respondent cannot be made to suffer. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition may be rejected with cost. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Priti Saraf and Another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, AIR 2021 SC 1532 (ii) Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, JT 2018 (1) SC 141 (iii) Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 931 (iv) Sau Saraswatibai vs. Lalitabai and Others, JT 2019 (1) SC 394 (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as the material made available on record. 9. As per factual report submitted in F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, during investigation, offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. were found against the accused-petitioner. 10. 9. As per factual report submitted in F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, during investigation, offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. were found against the accused-petitioner. 10. As per the submissions made by the respondent No. 2, he was shocked to know that the original security slips were forged, as the same were filled with different names by the petitioner. During settlement, no receipts of payment were delivered to him. The MOU and settlement cannot come into the way of impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings, as the present case is a fit case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy against him by breaching his trust and fraudulently forging and using the security slips for reaping illegal monetary benefits against him as well as other innocent people. 11. The respondent No. 2, in his reply at Para No. 4, has admitted that his brother had no choice but to enter into the MOU dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-2) only to release him from the jail. It is admitted by respondent No. 2 at Para No. 6 that settlement/agreement dated 06.02.2021 (Annexure-03) was entered into between the petitioner and him. It is further admitted by him at Para No. 7 that the petitioner did not object to the quashing of F.I.R. bearing No. 110/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi, the terms of the MOU. 12. The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, vide its judgment dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-A/5), in Avnish Bansal vs. State and Others (Crl. M.C. No. 998/2021) quashed F.I.R. bearing No. 110/2018 dated 28.04.2018 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh (North-West), Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 13. Para No. 9 of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi in Avnish Bansal (supra) reads as under: “Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the intervention of their well wishers and relatives entered into an amicable settlement vide settlement deed dated 25.10.2019.” 14. 13. Para No. 9 of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi in Avnish Bansal (supra) reads as under: “Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the intervention of their well wishers and relatives entered into an amicable settlement vide settlement deed dated 25.10.2019.” 14. It reveals from aforesaid discussion that in view of MOU dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-2), the respondent No. 2 was granted regular bail in F.I.R. No. 110/2018 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of I.P.C. It is further revealed that in view of MOU dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-2) and settlement/agreement dated 06.02.2021 (Annexure-3), aforesaid F.I.R. No. 110/2018 was quashed against the respondent No. 2 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi, vide its order dated 24.03.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 998/2021 titled as Avnish Bansal vs. State and Others (Annexure-A/5). 15. Thus, as per aforesaid MOU (Annexure-2) and settlement/ agreement (Annexure-3), the present F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur had to be quashed against the accused-petitioner. But the respondent No. 2 wants to proceed with the present F.I.R. No. 1001/2016, as he has some dispute with regard to aforesaid MOU (Annexure-2) and settlement/agreement (Annexure-3), thereto. 16. So far as factual report of aforesaid F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it has also been mentioned in the factual report that earlier in this F.I.R. negative Final Report bearing No. 816/16 dated 24.12.2016 on ground of adam-vaku (the matter is found to be false) was submitted on 09.01.2017 before the Court of M.M. No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan. It has also been mentioned that the accused-petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 17. With the above discussion, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was granted regular bail in F.I.R. No. 110/2018 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and the said F.I.R. No. 110/2018 was also quashed in view of the aforesaid MOU (Annexure-2) and settlement/ agreement (Annexure-3). As per factual report submitted in F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, earlier negative Final Report was submitted and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 18. As per factual report submitted in F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, earlier negative Final Report was submitted and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 18. During the course of arguments, judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, fail to advance the case of the respondent. 19. In view of discussion made herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that allowing continuance of aforesaid F.I.R. No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) against the accused-petitioner only, is not expedient in the interest of justice and amounts to a gross abuse of process of Court. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed. 20. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous petition is allowed and impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 1001/2016 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings arising out thereof, are quashed, qua the accused-petitioner only. 21. Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of.