HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4038 of 2008 O R D E R: This is a very peculiar case. The petitioners, who are the accused laid charge sheet for the offences punishable u/Secs. 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The allegation is that the accused cheated Canara bank, Abids Branch, Hyderabad and procured loan by producing false and forged documents. After the case was instituted, an understanding was reached between the accused and the Bank. The entire money due to the bank was admittedly paid by the accused. The bank was intended to compromise and compound the case. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the trial court could not compound the offence as the case was stayed in the present proceedings. It would appear to be the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that in the event the stay is vacated, there is a possibility of settling the matter before the trial court. 3. The peculiarity of this case is that the matter was already settled between the parties. The 2nd respondent received the entire amount due to it. Nothing subsists between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent as on today. 4. However, Secs.468 and 471 IPC are not compoundable offences. Assuming that the stay is vacated, perhaps it is not possible for the 2nd respondent to compound the offences levelled against the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, the admitted case of both sides is that the dispute between the accused and the 2nd respondent has already been resolved. 6. In this context, Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the accused drew my attention to Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab[1] wherein an application for quashing of the FIR for the offences punishable U/Secs.379, 406, 409, 418 and 506 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC was rejected by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the offence punishable u/Sec.406 IPC involving more than Rs.250/- was not compoundable. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute for the case was purely a personal rivelry between the two contesting parties and that there was no involvement of public policy. More importantly, the Supreme Court observed that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has passed away so much so the possibility of the conviction was ruled out. 7. In the present case, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent admitted that the matter was settled between the parties. Assuming that the case goes back before the trial court, what all the 2nd respondent would suggest is to record settlement between the parties. However, where the offences under Secs.468 and 471 IPC are involved, the 2nd respondent may not succeed. 8. At the same time, where admittedly the dispute between both the accused and the 2nd respondent stood resolved by payment of the entire money due from the accused to the 2nd respondent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the case as observed in Abbot’s case (1 supra). I therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant in CC No.28 of 2000 on the file of the XII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad deserves to be quashed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.28 of 2000 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed. _____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR DT. 24-3-2011 Mjl/* [1] (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 464