JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the petitioner, Shri. Manish Agarwal for quashing the FIR dated 26.10.2019, registered as South Police Station, Kohima, being South Police Station, Kohima, Case No. 38/2019, under Section 420/120B of IPC. 2. It is to be mentioned here that the aforementioned FIR has been lodged by three complainant namely Shri, K. Thotso, Kikhwwsul Sachu and Zulu Ao on 30.01.2019 to the effect that they have participated in a tender process in the name of a firm, Srinath Builders & Housing Company (Private) Limited in 2016, for the construction of College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry at Jalukie, Peren District. In that connection they had transferred a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) in the account of Manish Agarwal, who is the proprietor of Shrinath Builders & Housing Company (Private) Limited as earnest money of the said tender process on 20.10.2016. But, unfortunately, the work was not allotted to them and the proprietor of Shrinath Builders & Housing Company (Private) Limited, Shri. Manish Agarwal had withdrawn the earnest money deposited by them and failed to return the same till filing of the FIR, though requested by them many a times to make the payment, and though he has assured them to pay the same. Upon the said FIR, the O.C., Kohima South Police Station registered a case, being Kohima South Police Station Case No. 0038/2019 under Section 420/120B IPC and carried out the investigation. While the investigation was going on, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR of South Kohima Police Station Case No. 0038/19. 3. Heard Mr. Toshi O Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned PP for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. Mr. Toshi. O. Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and also the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 entered into an agreement to participate in the tender process in the name of the firm of the petitioner and pursuant to the said agreement, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have deposited a sum of Rs. 30,00000/- (Thirty lakhs) and the petitioner also had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,00000/- (Forty lakhs) and total Rs. 2 to 4 entered into an agreement to participate in the tender process in the name of the firm of the petitioner and pursuant to the said agreement, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have deposited a sum of Rs. 30,00000/- (Thirty lakhs) and the petitioner also had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,00000/- (Forty lakhs) and total Rs. 70,00000/- (Seventy lakhs) being the earnest money required to be deposited in the tender process for construction of the College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry at Jalukie, Peren. But, the petitioner’s firm became unsuccessful in the said bidding process and thereafter, the petitioner has withdrawn Rs. 30 Lakhs, from the account deposited by the respondents and spent the same and later on he had returned the entire amount of 30 Lakhs to the respondents and they have executed two agreements also which are being annexed as Annexure ‘A’ and also as Annexure ‘B’ and the entire matter is of civil in nature and the same was amicably resolved and therefore it contended to allow the petition and to quash the impugned FIR. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also confirmed that the respondents have received the amount they have deposited in the account of the firm of the petitioner and that they have entered into a deed of settlement and they are not willing to pursue the matter and therefore, they have no objection in the event of allowing the petition. 6. On the other hand, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned PP also submits that the State has no objection since the matter has amicably been settled by the parties. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and also gone through the materials placed on record. It appears that South Police Station, Kohima Case No. 38/19 has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 30.01.2019, on account of failing to return the earnest money deposited by them in the account of the petitioner’s firm for participating in the tender process floated for construction of College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry at Jalukie, Peren District, Nagaland. It also appears that while the investigation was going on the respondents and the petitioner have entered into two settlement deeds, dated 15.03.2021, and on 19.02.2021. It also appears that while the investigation was going on the respondents and the petitioner have entered into two settlement deeds, dated 15.03.2021, and on 19.02.2021. A careful perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner has already returned the earnest money that is Rs. 30 Lakhs to the petitioners in two installments, i.e., 20 Lakhs and 10 Lakhs respectively and that the respondents are, therefore, not willing to pursue the matter, they have submitted one affidavit also to that effect on 11.04.2022. Further it appears that the disputes between the parties are civil in nature and there was an agreement between the parties to participate in the tender process. The said agreement is also annexed with the petition as Annexure No.3. 8. It is to be mentioned here that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors (2019) 5SCC 688, the honorable Supreme Court held that, “the power confered under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when parties had resolved the entire dispute among themselves”. 9. Again, in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 after considering the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the honorable Supreme Court has held that, “when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petiton for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives”. 10. In the instant case, the parties have settled the disputes amicably within themselves entirely and they have entered into settlement deed and they are also not willing to pursue the matter. Since the parties have settled the disputes amicably and no longer willing to pursue the matter, it would be abuse of the process of the Court, if the investigation is allowed to be continued. 11. Since the parties have settled the disputes amicably and no longer willing to pursue the matter, it would be abuse of the process of the Court, if the investigation is allowed to be continued. 11. Besides, from the documents placed on record it appears that the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character arising out of commercial transactions and the parties have resolved the entire dispute among themselves and as such this Court is of the considered opinion that the end of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. 12. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned FIR dated 30.01.2019 stands set aside and quashed. The parties have to bear their own costs.