IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 33 of 2009 Between: 1 Sri Amudala Karunasagar, S/o Narayana, R/o Ramannapeta Village, Nalgonda Dist. 2 Samagani Anjaiah, S/o Agaiah, R/o Gundrampally Village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A.P., Through C.B.I., Rep. by Inspector of Police, C.B.I., S.P.E., Hyderabad. Rep. by the Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto exercise inherent powers U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.16/2002 on the file of the Spl. Judge for C.B.I.Casses, Hyderabad, while granting suitable directions to the sub-ordinate Courts to observe strict obedience and adherence to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1) Tiron Nazarat Vs. State of Goa, 2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 591 SC, 3) CBI Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. 1996(2) ALD (Crl.) 546 (SC0 = 1996 (5) SCC 591 and 4) B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 842 (SC) - 2003(4) SCC 675 in the interest of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 3599 of 2009 Between: Syed Rasool(A-I) Branch Manager Specialized Agricultural Branch Andhra Bank,Khairatabad Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The State of rep.CBI/SPE Hyderabad Rep.by SPL.PP High Court of A.P Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in C.C No.1 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases Hyderabad The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1609 of 2009 Between: T.Ramgopal, S/o late Subba Rao, Marketing Department, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the Inspector of Police/CBI SPE, Hyderabad against the petitioner in C.C.No.3 of 2003 in the Court of Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAVI KONDAVEETI, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1968 of 2009 Between: 1 T.B.Shankar Rao, (A5) S/o late T.B.Krishna Rao, R/o Plot No.7, HIG, 4th Phase, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.T.Usha Rani, (A6) W/o T.B.Shankar Rao, R/o Plot No.7, HIG, 4th Phase, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 3 Smt.V.Sarojini, (A7) W/o Late Venkata Sheshaiah, R/o Plot No.7, HIG, 4th Phase, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Stankem Laboratories, (A8) Directors T.B.Shankar Rao, Smt. T.Usharani & T.Sarojini, 5 Sri. Laxmi Narayana, (A9) S/o Sri J.Subba Rao, R/o B-597, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., Through CBI/SPE, Hyderabad. Rep. by the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 3620 of 2009 Between: 1 M.Raghavendra Rao, S/o Sri Hanumantha Rao, R/o 2-2-1105/22/A, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Srivatsa Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its M.D., S/o M.Raghavendrarao S/o Hanumantharao, Regd. Off. 2-2-1153, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. R/o 2-2-1105/22/A, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 M.V.Ramana Rao, S/o Sri Hanumantha Rao, R/o 2-2-1105/22/A, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 M.Ravi Kumar, S/o Sri Hanumantha Rao, R/o 2-2-1105/22/A, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. M.Padmaja, W/o M.Raghavendra Rao, R/o 2-2-1105/22/A, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 6 V.Seetharam, S/o Sri Sundara Ramana Rao, R/o Plot No.163/1, Harihara Sadan, Bhagyanagar Colony, Opp: KPHB, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Canara Bank, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Circle Office, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the C.C.No.507 of 2004 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 9244 of 2009 Between: E.Sivasankaram, S/o late Venkatanarayana, R/o 1-1-651/V, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the CBI/SPE, Hyderabad, Represented by the Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.3/2003 on the file of the Court of the Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.DHANAMJAYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 8490 of 2008 Between: Rajendra Prasad Rathi, S/o Sri R.D.Rathi, M/s. Prima Pharmatech (I) Ltd., R/o H.No.44-7-101/3, Isamia Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the C.C.No.39 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad as against the petitioner. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAGHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 8460 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s. Sai Priya Estates & Restore Ltd, (A-20 Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri D.R.K. Prasd, S/o. Late Satyanana Rao, S/o. Late atyanarayana Rao, Aged 43, R/o. D.No. 405, Mahalakshmi Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 2 Dandamudi Papa Rao,(A-3) S/o. Late Satyanarayana Rao, R/o. D.No. 402, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. 3 Valluripalli Venkat Nageswara Rao,(A_4) S/o. Papa Rao, R/o. D.No. 9-42, Siripuram, Balajinagar, Visakhapatnam. 4 Dandamudi Rama Krishna Prasad,(A_5) S/o. late Satyanarayana Rao, R/o. D.No. 405, Mahalakshmi Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 5 M/s. Sri Priya Nests Pvt., Ltd., (A-8)rep by its Managing Director, Sri D.R.K. Prasad, S/o. Late Satyanarana Rao, Aged 43 yearsR/o. D.No. 405, Mahalakshmi Apartments, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND State - CBI , SPE, Visakhapatnam, rep by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P>, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in CC.No. 8 of 2006 on the file of the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases,Visakhapatnam The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 1137 of 2009 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgement in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the to set-aside the Order, dated 31.12.08 in Crl.M.P.No.3149 of 2008 in C.C.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Spl. Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad.,preferred against the order in CRL.MP 3149 2008 dated 31/12/2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad) Between: T.Ramgopal, S/o late Subba Rao, R/o 104, Gayatri Apartments, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., Through the CBI/SPE, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: T.NIRANJAN REDDY,SPL P.P FOR CBI The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.P.Nos. 33; 3599; 1609; 1968; 3620 and 9244 of 2009; 8490 and 8460 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.No. 1137 of 2009 Common Order: As in all these mattes, the question that arises for consideration is one and the same; they are all heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Out of all these cases – C.C.No. 1 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad pertaining to Crl.P.No. 3599 of 2009 and C.C.No. 16 of 2002 pending on the file of the same learned Judge, pertaining to Crl.R.C.No. 1137 of 2009 and Crl.P.No.33 of 2009 are posted for arguments before the trial court. C.C.No. 3 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad pertaining to Crl.P.No.1609; 1968 and 9244 of 2009; C.C.No. 39 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned judge pertainng to Crl.P.No. 8490 of 2009; C.C.No. 08 of 2006 pending on the file of the same learned Judge pertaining to Crl.P.No. 8460 of 2008 and C.C.No. 507 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are in the middle of trial. 3. In C.C.No. 16 of 2002 pertaining to Crl.R.C.No. 1137 of 2009 and Crl.P.No. 33 of 2009 relevant facts for disposal of these petitions are as follows: In this case, charge sheet is filed by the CBI, Hyderabad against T. Ramgopal (A-1)(Crl.R.C.No. 1137 of 2009) and Amudala Karunasagar and Samagani Anjaiah (A-11 and A-12, Crl.P.No. 33 of 2009) respectively and others alleging that during 1995, A-1 was the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Shamsheergunj Branch, Hyderabad. A-11 and A-12 along with some others entered into conspiracy to cheat Andhra Bank, Shamsheer gunj Branch, in the matter of giving poultry loans to A-4 and A-5 to a tune of Rs.23.75 Lakhs each. A-4 and A-5 have registered Ac.5.36 each of land in Sy.Nos.355 and 356 in Gundrampally village of Nalgonda District, in their names on the basis of a fabricated Pahani vide sale deed Nos. 698 and 699 of 1995 dated: 13.7.1995 executed by Somagani Anjaiah (A-12), who had no title to the said land. One Smt. Ravi Krishna Veni was the absolute owner of those lands. Thereafter, A-4 and A-5 submitted those documents as collateral security and A-1 and another Officer of the bank have accepted them without verification, in persuasion of the conspiracy and loan was granted which was misused. The allegations against the present petitioners in both the cases is that they have submitted false documents and A-1 in conspiracy with them and other accused in this case have accepted those documents and released the loan. 4. (a) Crl.P.No. 3599 of 2009 is filed by A-1 in C.C.No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was the Branch Manager of Specialised Agricultural Bank, Andhra Bank, Khairatabad, Hyderabad; that A-4 - M/s. Paranika Harvest Floratech Ltd., have submitted a loan application to the Bagh Amberpet Branch of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad on 8.4.1996 for a term loan of Rs.1.00 Crore in consortium with Dena Bank (which was a lead bank). The said loan application was processed by the Branch Manager, T. Ramgopal, who is an accused in another case in the same series, who recommended the loan proposal of A-4 Company and the loan was sanctioned on 9.7.19976 by the Head Office. Sanction letter was handed over to A-2, the Managing Director of A-4 Company by Ramgopal. Later, the transaction was transferred to the Specialized Agriculture Bank, Andhra Bank, Kharitabad, Hyderabad, of which A-1, the present petitioner was the Manager. On 29.1.1998, A-2 deposited a gift-deed dated: 27.12.1997 for a site measuring 1506 square yards valued at Rs.9.00 Lakhs, as security with the bank. On 29.1.1998, A- 3 deposited registered sale deeds pertaining to certain lands of Maheshwaram village. On 29.1.1998, itself, A-3 also deposited a sale deed and pattedar pass book for some other lands also. Some other documents were also deposited by other persons. (b) The title deeds deposited by A-1 and A-2 and some others by name M. Susheela Devi were pledged with the bank. A-1 and one Challa Laxminarayana, entered into the above title deeds and the title deeds were registered. The valuation of the properties pledged was done and finally A-1 without getting sanction letter revalidated and disbursed the loan of Rs.1.00 crore, as share of the Andhra Bank; the investigation revealed that the documents submitted by A-2 and A-3 are defective and there was impersonation in deposit of the title deeds of some lands. Some portion of those lands was mortgaged and some portion of the land was already sold. Thus the present petitioners acted in conspiracy with other accused in this case and committed offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC etc. 5. (a) Crl.P.No. 1609 of 2009 – the petitioner in this petition is A-1 in C.C.No.3 of 2003. The facts relevant to the extent of these petitioners are that - A-1, A-3; A-10 and A-11 are the officers of Andhra Bank. They entered into conspiracy with other accused i.e., A-4 to A-9. A-5 to A-8 have applied for a loan for establishment of poultry units and also for manufacture of poultry medicines without any lands of their own for establishment of poultry units with the connivance of A-1 to A-3 and A-10 and A-11 and obtained loans to a tune of Rs.81.25 Lakhs. A-5 and a-6 had purchased lands after applying loan and offered that land as security. A-7 had no lands. (b) A-1 appraised and recommended the loan applications of A-5; A-6 and A-7 to the Zonal Office without verifying the genuineness of the land documents and antecedents of the applicants, who were not even having accounts in the Branch. He mis-lead the higher authorities that the documents of the other accused are genuine and falsely certified the applications of A-5 to A-8. The investigation revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy A-2, Ch. Nageswara Rao, who succeeded A-1 (P. Ram Gopal), as Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Shamsheergunj Branch, Hyderabad has forwarded favourably recommending the loan application of A-5 to A-7 who have requested for change of site of land, which were shown in the original application, of which they never had any land. The investigation further revealed that A-5 and A-6 had purchased lands at a later date and A-7 had no lands. A-2 had disbursed the loan to A-5 to A-7 without monitoring the progress and ensured the construction of the poultry units on the lands without following the procedure. (c) The investigation also revealed that A-4, a Chartered Accountant acted as a middle man between A-5 to A-7 and A-1 to A-3 with a dis-honest intention and filled the false details in the appraisal report. A-7 in this case submitted fictitious NOCs in connivance with the present petitioners and other officers. The loans were given on the names of fictitious firms. 6. Crl.P.No. 1968 of 2009 – this petition is filed by A-5; A-6; A- 7; A-8 and A-9 in C.C.No. 3 of 2003 and the allegations against these petitioners are that they entered into conspiracy with the bank officials i.e., A-1 and others in this case by submitting fictitious documents and drawn loans on non-existing firms etc. Certain details of which were dealt while dealing with Crl.P.No.1609 of 2009. 7. Crl.P.No. 9244 of 2009 - This petition is filed by A-11 in C.C.No.3 of 2003. The present petitioner was the then Deputy Zonal Manager o Andhra Bank, Hyderabad. The allegation against him is that he in conspiracy with other accused in this case by over-looking the objections taken by the subordinates had sanctioned loans to A-5 to A-7 by causing loss to the bank. 8. Crl.P.No. 8490 of 2008 – this petition is filed by A-4 in C.C.No. 39 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The prosecution case, in this case is that A-1 in this case was the Branch Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Old Boinpally Branch, Secunderabad; A-2 is M/s. Prima Pharmatech (I) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Kajal Ghosh; A-4 was the Director in the same A-2 firm. A-1 entered into conspiracy with A-4 to cheat the bank and suppressed the irregularities committed in the account pertaining to M/s. Prime Pharmatech (I) Ltd.; falsified the accounts and caused wrongful loss to the Bank to a tune of Rs.55.00 Lakhs and causing corresponding wrongful gain to A-2 firm. He has also conspired with the accused for availing ODBCC account facility by submitting ODBCC bills to the bank in the name of a non-existing firm and caused loss to the bank on account of the acts of the accused. 9. Crl.P.No. 8460 of 2008 – This petition is filed by A-2 to A-8 in C.C.No. 8 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. It is alleged that the present petitioners in conspiracy with A-1, the Branch Manager caused wrongful loss to Andhra Bank by sanctioning loan of Rs.50.00 Lakhs to A-1 on the basis of the false documents and had also caused loss to the bank by committing various illegal activities. 10. Crl.P.No. 3620 of 2009 – this petition is filed by all the accused in C.C.No. 507 of 2004 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The allegations in the charge sheet are A-1 was the Managing director of M/s. Srivatsa Ispat Pvt. Ltd., A-2 entered into criminal conspiracy with A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 and availed credit limits from Canara Bank, MG Road, Secunderabad towards working capital for M/s. Srivatsa Ispat Pvt. Ltd., by submitting fake and forged documents towards collateral security and diverted the funds released from Canara Bank by floating non-existing firms. Thus cheated the bank to a tune of Rs.2,02,57,623.00. 11. The question involved in these cases being as to whether the prosecution can be quashed when the matter is settled between the parties on account of the payment of loan amount to the bank. 12. As the details of all the cases are not essential for the deposal of the cases, for the purpose of brevity all the details of the cases are not referred to here. 13. C.C.No. 16 of 2002 against which Crl.P.no.33 of 2009 and Crl.R.C.No. 1137 of 2009 are filed and C.C.No.1 of 2003 against which Crl.P.No. 3599 of 2009 are filed are at the stage of arguments. 14. Though all these cases are very old pertaining right from the years 2002 upto 2006, the reason for filing the present quash petitions, at this sage, according to the learned senior counsel – Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners is in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation[1] where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in case where there is settlement between the parties with regard to a dispute and where the disputed amounts are paid, the criminal prosecution can be quashed. 14. Now the point for consideration in these criminal petitions and the criminal revision case is that as to whether on account of payment of the disputed amounts, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners can be quashed. 15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contends that in spite of the amounts being paid, the proceedings can not be quashed as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases; that quashing of the proceedings for the reason that the amounts disputed are paid would amount to encouraging unhealthy trend and that when an offence is committed against public institutions, there is no justification in quashing the proceedings for the reason that the amounts concerned were paid. 16. In Nikhil Merchant case (1 supra), on which the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly relied, the facts are as follows: i) The CBI filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In that case, the accused were facing charges for offences for violation of various provisions. On account of default in payment of loan, the Bank filed suit for recovery of the amount and also a complaint was made by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank and the investigation was taken up by the CBI and charge sheet was filed alleging that the accused in the case conspired with each other and fraudulently diverting the funds of Bank by alleging the offences of forgery etc. Subsequently the civil suit was disposed of on compromise between the parties and the present accused, the defendants in the suit agreed to pay the amounts due as per the terms of the compromise. It was specifically mentioned in the compromise that the parties agrees to withdraw the allegations and counter allegations made against each other. On the basis of the compromise in the suit and in view of the averments made in the compromise petition the parties have to withdraw the allegations and counter allegations made against each other. Thereafter, the accused filed an application for discharge from the criminal complaint in respect of which the CBI filed the charge sheet; that was rejected by the Special Judge concerned and the same was challenged by the accused before the Bombay High Court. Before the High Court, it was contended that since the subject matter of dispute was settled between the accused and the bank, it would be unreasonable to continue the criminal proceedings, which commenced on the complaint filed on behalf of the bank, particularly in view of clause (11) of the compromise, as per which the parties have agreed to withdraw the allegations and counter allegations made against each other. ii) The petitioners also relied on the judgments in CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.,[2] and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana[3] in support of the contention that after the matter is settled between the parties, the criminal prosecution need not be continued. In Duncans case (2 supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that – even if an offence of cheating is prima facie made out, such offence is a compoundable offence and the compromise decree was passed in the suit instituted by the Bank, the amount to compounding of the offence of cheating, as such the same can be quashed. iii) In B.S. Joshi case (3 supra), the offences charged were under sections 498-A and 406 IPC