Judgment : 1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No.155 of 2012 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as the matter is settled and compromised cut of Court. 2. The second respondent herein lodged a complaint as against the petitioners/accused alleging offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w. 420 IPC with the respondent police and a case was registered in Crime No.155 of 2012 on 06.11.2012. The case of the defacto complaint is that she purchased a land in S.No.46/11 of Anaicut Village measuring 1.23 acres from the petitioners vide sale deed bearing Document No.2279 of 2005 dated 18.10.2005 registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Poonamallee. The defacto complainant subsequently came to know that the same property was already sold to one Deva Kirubai in 1996 vide Sale Deed No.103 of 1996. Hence, she filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai against the petitioners. 3. Now the parties entered into a compromise. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as a settlement to the defecto complainant. The second respondent is also present in the Court. She has also filed an affidavit stating that the complaint is compounded between the parties and has also expressed her willingness to quash the complaint against the petitioners. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records available on record including the affidavit filed by the defacto-complainant/R2. 5. Since the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings in Crime No.155 of 2012 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Egmore could be quashed as against the petitioners/accused, by applying the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in ( 2012 (10) SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another), wherein it has been held as follows:- “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavor stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme in justice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” In view of the above referred judgment, the criminal proceedings arisen out of civil disputes can be quashed, if the parties arrived at an amicable settlement. 6. In view of the above, the present criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Crime No.155 of 2012 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Egmore, is quashed.