IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Continuance of trial pursuant to mutual settlement arrived at between parties would be a futile exercise.
(2) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy.

ORDER (ORAL)

Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin C. Patel states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

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.I-11213026220256 of 2023 registered with the Kotada Sangani Police Station, District : Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and the consequential proceedings arising out therefrom.

5. Going through the complaint, it appears that respondent No.2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing Gharghanti and his factory named khodiyar Enterprise, he also alleged in his complaint that earlier he was do this business as Khodiyar Enterprise which was converted in name of Amar Industry at village Ardoi, Kotda Sangani. It is alleged present applicant whose company name is Milpower Private Limited and doing his business since last six to seven year. It is further alleged that while complainant have business with name of Khodiyar enterprise he has sent some Gharghanti to the Millpower Private Limited through transportation on 16.07.2022 along with bill of Rs.7,90,550/-. Thereafter on 24.07.2022 again he sent some goods and spare parts of Gharghanti worth of Rs.5,49,200/- and at that time brother of the complainant went to Millpower Private Limited Company at Ahmedabad to deposit the goods and for collect the amount of Rs.13,39,750/- which is the outstanding amount. That the owner of Millpower Company Hiteshbhai promised that he will send the money after five days. It is also alleged in complaint that applicant has not paid amount to the informant and due to nonpayment from applicant side he was in depression and consume poison and then he was taken to the hospital for treatment. After he was under treatment for many days, his brother called to pay the money. It is also alleged that applicant-accused has not paid remaining amount. Hence, the present complaint is lodged. Now, dispute is settled between the parties as the same is private in nature, In view of above, the present application deserves consideration.

6. 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 have categorically stated that the dispute with the applicant 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.

7. Learned APP has raised objection to allow the present petition considering the nature of allegations levelled in the complaint. It is stated that due to act of the accused and he has used abusive language the present complaint is filed. In view of above, the present application be dismissed.

8. Considering the fact that prima facie, it appears that there is some dispute of commercial transaction qua purchase the goods. It is admitted that there was some dues of Rs.13,39,750/- and the same has been paid and the said fact is confirmed at annexure – B, page 14 of the compilation. It appears that dispute is private in nature and it is needless to say that as per the FIR, the offence has not taken place either for the purpose of cheating or forgery. In view of a