JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. By way of this application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned 25th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.6932 of 2018 as well as the order dated 17.07.2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, below Exh.1 in Criminal Appeal No.261 of. 2019 and also Judgment and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, for restoration of Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2019 and further be pleased to acquit the applicants; 5. Learned advocate for the applicants states that instead of approximately 20% of the Cheque amount, the applicants have deposited 40% to the Cheque amount i.e. Rs.9,80,836/-. 5.1. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the Criminal Case as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its powers conferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 5.2. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its powers conferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the applicants states that during the period between 04.04.2017 to 23.04.2017, the applicants Company has paid the amount and the respondent No.2 has misused the cheque issued towards the security purpose cannot be considered as the applicants have not produced any documentary evidence in defence of the same and neither the applicants have produced any Bank entry substantiating the same and thus, it is not believable that the respondent No.2 had misused the security cheque and the said defence of the applicants are not probable to be true. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected. 7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and the respondent No.2 is resolved and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned proceeding against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned proceeding against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 dated 4.10.2017 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, particularly paragraph 15. Considering the nature of disputes between the parties which are all private in nature, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings of Criminal Case would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the Criminal Case is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred upon this Court. 8.1. In Gian Singh (supra), it is held, “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.” “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” 61. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” 61. 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 predominatingly 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. Resultantly, this application is disposed of. The order dated 17.07.2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, below Exh.1 in Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2019 and Judgment and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, for restoration of Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2019 are hereby quashed and set aside with consent of the respondent No.2 – Original Complainant. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 10. The Trial Court is directed to hear the Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2019 as expeditiously possible. 11. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the Trial Court / Appellate Court will consider the Criminal Appeal on merits and Criminal Appeal is ordered to be restored in its original file. Direct service is permitted.