ORDER : 1. Learned advocate Ms. Nimisha J. Parekh states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. 2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being CR No.11210048230616 of 2023 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat, for the offences under Sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114 of the IPC read with 66(D) of the IT Act all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Going through the material on record, it appears that the complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2. In the present case, petitioner was working as a clerk in the Account Department of the Complainant Institution viz. M.D. Jain Modern School and It was alleged that during the year 2020-2022, the present applicant in connivance and in collusion with the accused viz. Priyankaben Bhattacharya by using Login ID and Password of school had received school fees amount from the parents of the students and tampering with the receipt and issued full amount received by offering the discount, the accused have manipulated the receipt issued by the school and thereby they have committed an offence and misappropriated the amount to the tune of approximately Rs.20 lakh. In this regard, the complaint came to be filed. Further during the investigation, it reveals that the accused No.1 viz. Priyankaben had misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,54,900/- while present accused has siphoned and misappropriated an amount of Rs.45,100/-. Subsequently, after filing of the charge-sheet, the settlement took place and the Education Institution has passed a Resolution, which is placed at page 23 of the compilation and authorized the respondent No.2 to settle the dispute. It is stated that the institution and trustees are having no objection, if the present complaint is quashed against the present applicant. Subsequently, after filing of the charge-sheet, the settlement took place and the Education Institution has passed a Resolution, which is placed at page 23 of the compilation and authorized the respondent No.2 to settle the dispute. It is stated that the institution and trustees are having no objection, if the present complaint is quashed against the present applicant. In this regard, respondent No.2 has filed affidavit, wherein, it is mentioned that in the course of the audit, there was found some indifference in collected the amount collected from the parents of the students and it was revealed that the present petitioner and accused No.1 had issued receipts and collected the amount and the same had not been deposited. Therefore, the present complaint was filed. Thereafter, the family members of the present petitioner approached the Trustees and Managing Committee Members and explained the case and they agreed to deposit the misappropriated amount and the School Trustees accepted their plea. Thereafter, the applicant has deposited the entire amount after filing of the complaint. They have nothing to do with each other. The Trust also inquired and after taking into account the facts and situation of the applicant and his family members, the Trust has decided not to proceed further with the FIR and pending Criminal Case qua the applicant. The institution has received the amount and loss is caused to the institution and no amount due to be paid by the applicant to the institution. Now complainant has no any further grievance to continue with the litigation. Therefore, now dispute is already settled between complainant and petitioner/accused, which is private in nature and amicable settlement is arrived between the parties, therefore, no purpose would be served to continue with the litigation, in view of above, the present application be allowed. 6. So far as allegations qua offence under Section 408 of IPC is concerned, as per the say of the respondent No.2, in the course of the audit, there was found some indifference in collected the amount collected from the parents of the students and it was revealed that the present petitioner and accused No.1 had issued receipts and collected the amount and the same had not been deposited. 7. 7. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant/s has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them. 8. So far as Section 420 is concerned, in this regard it would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (i) Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 (ii) Jay Shri & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan ( 2024 INSC 48 ) passed in Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 OF 2023) and (iii) A.M. Mohan vs. The State represented By SHO and Another reported in 2024 INSC 233 , passed in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 9598 of 2022), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 and in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para 102 as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31 , (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant/s in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant/s. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. 11. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being CR No.11210048230616 of 2023 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.