Judgment :- A dispute has arisen between the petitioners who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.2 of 2006 on the file of the 1st respondent and the defacto complainant in the case who has been impleaded as 4th respondent under orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.928 of 2006 dated 17.02.2006. 2. The dispute relates to an agreement for sale in respect of immovable property, whereunder the 4th respondent was the purchaser and had parted with consideration therefor in a sum of Rs.63,60,000/-. The 4th respondent had preferred a complaint on 02.01.2006 with the 1st respondent police alleging that the property which the petitioners had agreed to sell to him already were encumbered, that upon knowledge of such position he sought return of the amount paid by him and that such demand was not complied with by the petitioners. On such complaint, Crime No.2 of 2006 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC came to be registered against the petitioners. 3. In the present petition to quash, the petitioners inform that the matter is essentially a civil dispute, that they faced several hardships at the hands of the 4th respondent as also the 3rd respondent police who was acting at his behest and who had insisted that they effect repayment of the sums that had been paid to them by the 4th respondent. The petition also informs of several actions taken by the petitioners including moving a writ petition before this Court seeking protection. 4. It now is informed by both learned counsel that the dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent stands settled and that the entire amount received by the petitioners from him have been repaid. This submission finds support in an affidavit of the 4th respondent filed in the present proceedings on 16.11.2006. In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2008(3) Crimes 377 (SC), the Honourable Apex Court in a case which had overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets, thought it fit that technicality should not be allowed in quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. This Court finds the present case, as one, where it would be appropriate to follow the said rationale. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. This Court finds the present case, as one, where it would be appropriate to follow the said rationale. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2006 on the file of the 1st respondent shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.