ORDER : (Shameem Akther, J.) 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein, charges were framed against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-6, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State, Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record. 3. The petitioners/A.2 to A.6 have wrongly mentioned that C.C. No. 4 of 2019 is pending on the file of Special Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, but in fact, on verification of the records and the case status information, it is found that the subject C.C. No. 4 of 2019 is pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : On 1-9-2012, Mr. M. Narsimlia Rao, the de facto complainant/father of the respondent No. 2 herein, lodged a report with KPHB Police Station stating that on 28-8-2012, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3, illegally trespassed into his property i.e., Plot No. 10 HIG, situated at VI Phase, Sy. No. 1009, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad and started putting some sticks in the said plot. When the de facto complainant and his son (respondent No. 2) questioned the same, they beat the respondent No. 2 with hands and legs and threatened him and his son with dire consequences. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No. 678/2012 against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No. 678/2012 against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that when the respondent No. 3 was searching for an open plot in Kukatpally area, the mediators approached respondent No. 4, who is the father-in-law of respondent No. 3, and shown the subject plot stating that it belongs to petitioner/A.4-MLA of Khanpur Constituency, Adilabad District. The petitioners/A.5 and A.6, who are followers of petitioner/A.4, conspired together, created forged documents of subject plot and got registered the sa(sic) in the name of petitioners/A.2 and A.3 through an impostor A.1-M. Narsimha Rao, on 4-4-2012. Thereafter, with the assistance of petitioner/A.4, both petitioners/A.5 and A.6 made the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 believe that the subject plot belongs to petitioners/A.2 and A.3 and collected Rs.45,00,000/- towards token advance i.e., 1/4th of total sale consideration. The petitioner/A.4 took the said amount at her residence and got the signatures of petitioners/A.2 and A.3 on the agreement of sale and on 18-8-2012, the petitioners/A.5 and A.6 collected Rs.1 Crore 35 Lakhs, from the residence of respondent No. 3 and got the subject plot registered in favour of respondent No. 3 and his brother-Baswaraj Srinivas, vide registered sale deed dated 18-8-2012. On 29-8-2013, when the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 tried to construct watchman room in the subject plot, they came to know that the subject plot belongs to the father of respondent No. 2 and that they were cheated by petitioner/A.2 to A.6 with forged and fabricated documents, resulting in loss of Rs.1 Crore 80 Lakhs. As the whereabouts of A. 1 (impersonator) were not known, the police split up the case against A.1 and filed charge sheet against petitioners/A.2 to A.6 only for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC before the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the aforesaid offences against petitioners/A.2 to A.6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the aforesaid offences against petitioners/A.2 to A.6. Thereafter, on constitution of Special Court for trial of cases relating to elected MPs and MLAs, the learned Magistrate transmitted the case records to the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases relating to elected MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad, as the petitioner/A.4 in this case being former MLA of Khanapur Constituency, Adilabad District. While so, during the pendency of subject Calendar Case No. 4 of 2019, the de facto complainant M. Narsimha Rao, died on 18-8-2020, and his son i.e., respondent No. 2 (LW. 2), who is already on record, is pursuing the subject Calendar Case. The petitioners/A.2 to A.6 filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad. 5. During the pendency of Criminal Petition, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 seeking permission of this Court to record the compromise, and I.A. No. 2 of 2020 to compound the offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC in C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the submission that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and petitioners/A-2 to A-6 have amicably settled all their disputes by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated. 1-12-2020. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, representing Smt. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for petitioners/A.2 to A.6 and Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would submit that the parties to the litigation have settled all their disputes amicably outside the Court. The petitioners/A.2 to A.6 are innocent persons. They were cheated by A.1 in the subject Crime, who registered sale deed in favour of petitioners/A.2 and A.3 by impersonation. A.1 is still absconding. In order to give a quietus to the entire litigation, petitioners/A.2 to A.6 have decided to settled the issue by repaying part of amount, which was paid by respondent No. 3 and his brother under the registered sale deed, dated 18-8-2012. A.1 is still absconding. In order to give a quietus to the entire litigation, petitioners/A.2 to A.6 have decided to settled the issue by repaying part of amount, which was paid by respondent No. 3 and his brother under the registered sale deed, dated 18-8-2012. The petitioners/A.2 to A.6 further agreed to cancel the sale deeds which were executed by A.1 by impersonation in their favour and also the subsequent sale deed executed by them in favour of respondent No. 3 and his brother. In furtherance of amicable settlement, the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 offered to pay an amount of Rs. 35 Lakhs to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 towards full and final settlement of the issue and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have accepted the same. Accordingly, the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 paid an amount of 20 lakhs by way of cash and Rs.15 Lakhs through online transfer to the respondent No. 3. Since the issue is settled between the parties to the litigation, the proceedings in the subject Calendar Case are required to be quashed. Since the parties to the litigation have compromised the matter, continuation of proceedings against them would be a futile exercise and ultimately, prayed to record the compromise entered between the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and compound the offences alleged against petitioners/A.2 to A.6 in the subject Calendar Case and quash the proceedings in the subject Calendar Case. In support of their contentions, both the learned counsel have relied upon the following decisions : The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 are: (i) B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) 60 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 675 (ii) Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 77 (SC) : (2008) 9 SCC 677 (iii) Manoj Sharma v. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1 (iv) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (v) Goakumar B. Nair v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 5 SCC 800 (vi) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Naryan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (vii) Munnala Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 613 of 2013 dated 5-5-2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are : (i) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Naryan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (supra) (ii) Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat and another, (2014) 4 SCC 149 (iv) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (supra) (v) Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State would contend that civil settlement between the parties to the litigation would not wipe out the criminal liability. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., under which provision of law this Criminal Petition is filed, have to be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. Admittedly, the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 of IPC alleged against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 are non-compoundable in nature. Further, offence under Section 420 IPC alleged against the petitioner/A.2 to A.6 is compoundable by the person cheated, with the permission of the Court. The alleged offence committed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 is well planned and committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequences to the society. One of the petitioners herein i.e., A.4 is a former MLA of Khanapur Constituency, Adilabad District. Being a legislator, her involvement in the alleged offence is unwarranted. Compounding of the alleged offences as requested by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 would amount to misplaced sympathy, which a Court, in its wisdom, shall desist from doing so. There are no grounds, either to record the compromise or to compound the offences, as requested by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The relief sought in this Criminal Petition cannot be granted and, ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition as well as I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed for recording compromise and compounding of offences. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Ravi Shankar Prasad and another, (2009) 6 SCC 351 (ii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hari Singh Ranka and others, (2020) 2 SCC (Crl.) 413 8. Be it noted that originally, the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 have field this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in the subject C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein, charges were framed against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. Pending disposal of this Criminal Petition, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein filed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 seeking permission of this Court to record the compromise and to compound the offences. In view of the same and the rival submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this Criminal Petition are as follows: (1) Whether any case is made out to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 in the subject C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad? (2) Whether the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC? POINT NO. 1: 9. A conjoint reading of the facts of the case, contents of the FIR, the material collected during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet filed before the Court below reveal that on 28-8-2012, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3, have illegally trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant (father of respondent No. 2), beat the respondent No. 2 with hands and legs and threatened the de facto complainant and respondent No. 2 with dire consequences. Basing on the report lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 678/2012 of KPHB Police Station, was registered against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, it was found that A-1 and the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 cheated the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by forging and fabricating the documents. 3 and 4 and brother of respondent No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, it was found that A-1 and the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 cheated the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by forging and fabricating the documents. As the whereabouts of A.1 (impersonator) were not known, the police split up the case against A.1 and filed charge sheet against petitioners/A.2 to A.6 only for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC before the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad. 10. As per the material placed on record, the subject plot admeasuring 400 square yards was originally allotted to the de facto complainant by the Housing Board Authorities of the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the West Division EE, had registered the said plot in the name of the de facto complainant vide Document No. 2361/1995. While so, when respondent No. 3 was in search of a plot for constructing hospital-cum-residential house, mediators approached him and respondent No. 4 and shown the subject plot stating that the said plot belongs to petitioner/A-4-MLA of Khanapur Constituency, Adilabad District. The petitioners/A.5 and A.6, who are the followers of A.4, conspired together, created forged documents of the subject plot and got the same registered in the name of petitioners/A.2 and A.3 with the assistance of petitioner/A.4, made the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 believe that the subject plot belongs to petitioners/A.2 and A.3, collected Rs.45 Lakhs towards token advance i.e., 1/4th sale consideration, entered into agreement of sale, petitioner/A.4 got the signatures of petitioners/A.2 and A.3 on the said agreement of sale and on 18-8-2012, petitioners/A.5 and A.6 collected an amount of Rs.1 Crore 35 Lakhs from the house of respondent No. 3 and got the plot registered in favour of respondent No. 3 and his brother. It is culled out from the record that petitioners/A.2 to A.6 conspired together and colluded with each other with a common intention to knock away the property belonging to the de facto complainant, by impersonating and creating false and forged documents and in the said process, they created Government Stamps, Government Seals and fake Voter ID in the name of A-1 and forged the signatures of Housing Board Executive Engineer and Vice Chairman, who are not parties to the compromise, though they are aggrieved. Further, the petitioners/A.5 and A.6, who are followers of petitioner/A.4, brought the imposter i.e., A.1 and registered the subject plot in the name of the said impostor vide document No. 2361/1995. Further, petitioners/A.5 and A.6 made the said imposter A.1 to register the subject plot in the name of petitioners/A.2 and A.3, who are the close associates of petitioner/A.4 etc., vide document No. 2068/2012, and later sold the subject plot in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 for the offences alleged against them. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the magnitude of the offence and its social impact, the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 can only be determined after full-fledged trial. Here, it is apt to state that for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to be fully satisfied as to (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the, material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. If the answer to all these steps is in affirmative, this Court, in its judicial conscience, would be justified in quashing such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in its under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious time of the Court, which would otherwise be wasted in holding a trial. However, if the answer to all the aforementioned steps is negative, then the Court should simply refuse to quash the proceedings. However, if the answer to all the aforementioned steps is negative, then the Court should simply refuse to quash the proceedings. In the instant case, none of the parameters indicated above are in favour of the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 to quash the proceedings against them.. 11. Under the circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 could not make out a case to quash the proceedings against them in the subject C.C. No. 4 of 2019 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Nampally, Hyderabad. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the prosecution and against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6. POINT NO. 2: 12. Now, let me examine whether the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 can be permitted to compound the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 is forgery for the purpose of cheating, impersonation, use of forged documents as genuine, criminal conspiracy and collusion with one another with a common intention to knock away the property belonging to third parties worth crores of rupees. After facing such serious charges, the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 wants the proceedings to be quashed on account of entering into compromise with the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In Hari Singh Ranka's case, (2020) 2 SCC (Crl.) 413 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that civil settlement of controversy would not suffice to wipe off criminal liability. In the said case, in view of serious allegations with regard to defrauding and cheating committed by the accused therein with the help of forged documents, orders of courts below discharging/quashing proceedings against the accused were set aside and criminal proceedings were restored. It was further held that even a judgment rendered in civil proceedings on the basis of a settlement entered into between the parties would not be of much relevance in criminal proceedings, having regard to provisions contained in Section 43 of Evidence Act. It was further held that even a judgment rendered in civil proceedings on the basis of a settlement entered into between the parties would not be of much relevance in criminal proceedings, having regard to provisions contained in Section 43 of Evidence Act. In Maninder Singh's case, (2016) 1 SCC 389 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that quashing the proceedings merely on ground of settlement with bank would amount to misplaced sympathy; Economic offences are public wrongs or crimes committed against society and gravity and magnitude thereof affect public at large and the Courts must not be swayed by return of money to bank which has been defrauded, but must also consider society at large. In A. Ravi Shankar Prasad's case, (2009) 6 SCC 351 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court should exercise the extraordinary inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly and with great caution; Each case has to be considered on its own merits; Criminal proceedings based on allegations like forgery, cheating etc., could not be quashed when prima facie case was made out in the charge-sheet. 13. It is also apt to state that the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly, only when the Court comes to a conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of process of the Court, if such power is not exercised. The instant case is not of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount, but a case of knocking away the property belonging to third parties worth crores of rupees by cheating, impersonating, creating false documents i.e., Government Stamps, Government Seals and fake Voter ID in the name of A.1 and forging the signatures of Housing Board Executive Engineer and Vice Chairman, which appears to be well planned and committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit, regardless to the consequence to society at large.' Moreover, the Housing Board Executive Engineer and Vice Chairman, whose signatures and seals, are forged and fabricated, are not parties to the compromise. They are also aggrieved persons. They are also aggrieved persons. Except the offences under Sections 419 IPC (compoundable) & 420 IPC (compoundable with the permission of the Court), other offences (Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC) are non-compoundable in term of Section 320 Cr.P.C., The offences alleged against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 are grave and serious in nature and the gravity is so high. Further, the offences alleged are not only against particular individuals but also against the public and society at large. The social impact of those offences is also very high. The so-called payments made in between the parties to the compromise, do not wipe out the crime and make the offences alleged against the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 compoundable. Even though the parties said to have compromised outside of the Court, no permission is liable to be granted to compound the alleged offences, as prayed for. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, compounding of the alleged offences as requested by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 would, amount to misplaced sympathy. 14. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 on Gian Singh's case, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that the cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly, the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising 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. 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 case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case, despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the aforementioned preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the aforementioned preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. But in the instant case, the petitioners/A.2 to A.6, in active connivance and' in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, tried to knock away the valuable property worth crores of rupees, behind the back of its original owner, by impersonation and by playing fraud on the innocent purchasers by making them believe the forged and fabricated documents as true and genuine. The magnitude of the alleged offence in this case cannot be said to be trivial in nature. Further, if the parties to the litigation are allowed to compound the offences alleged against them and consequently quash the proceedings in the subject Calendar Case, it would amount to legalizing the illegal acts committed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 under the pretext of settlement of dispute outside the Court, which would be detrimental to the interest of the society at large. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that compounding the alleged offences would certainly amount to misplaced sympathy. 15. The other decisions in B.S. Joshi's case, 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) 60 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 675 (supra), Nikhil Merchant's cases, 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 77 (SC) : (2008) 9 SCC 677 (supra), Manoj Sharma's case, (2008) 16 SCC 1 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 were discussed in Gian Singh's case, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (supra) and hence, needs no further discussion. 16. In Gopakumar B. Nair's case, (2014) 5 SCC 800 (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that what really follows from the decision of Gian Singh's case is that though quashing a non-compoundable offence under Section 482 Cr.P.C., following a settlement between the parties, would not amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code, the exercise of power under Section 482 will always depend on the facts of each case. In Laxmi Narayan's case, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 as well as the respondent Nos. In Laxmi Narayan's case, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 as well as the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that power of quashing is different from power of compounding; quashing would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case; the Court has to apply mind to (i) whether crime against society or against individual alone and kind of dispute, whether civil or criminal, (ii) seriousness, nature and category/kind of crime/offence and how committed, (iii) whether offence under special statute, (iv) state of proceedings, (v) conduct and antecedent of accused, whether accused absconding, why absconding and how he managed to compromise with complainant. There cannot be any dispute with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned two decisions. It is also settled law that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In Munnala Agarwal's case Criminal Petition No. 613 of 2013 (supra) the prime allegation against the petitioners therein was that they availed loans from bank and diverted the funds to various accounts without consent of bank, hatched a plan along with other accused and cheated the bank. Thereafter, the petitioners therein paid the entire due amount to the bank even before filing of charge-sheet. The bank accepted the same and in lieu of said settlement, a compromise memo was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In spite of the same, the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet ignoring the compromise between the parties. Moreover, the material witnesses therein did not support the prosecution. In view of the same, this Court, after discussing various precedents in detail, quashed the proceedings holding that the entire case involved in default of repayment of debt to the bank and even before filing of charge-sheet, the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the de-facto complainant bank had been mutually settled between the parties and even though trial is commenced, but the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and more time will be consumed to conclude the trial which is of no use and would result in waste of time of Court and public money. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 17. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 17. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the decisions in Narinder Singh's case, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (supra), Shambhu Kewat's case, (2014) 4 SCC 149 (supra), Gian Singh's case, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (supra) and Shiji @ Pappu's case, (2011) 10 SCC 705 (supra), were discussed/distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan's case, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (supra) which is already discussed above. The other unreported decisions relied by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were decided basing upon the facts and circumstances of the said cases. 18. For the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant permission to compound the offences as sought by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The point No. 2 is answered accordingly. The petitioners/A.2 to A.6 are required to face trial in the case to find out their innocence or otherwise in the alleged offences. There are no grounds to grant any relief as sought by the petitioners/A.2 to A.6. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. In the given circumstances of the case, it is apt to state that though the subject criminal case was registered on 1-9-2012 and 8 years 7 months and 6 days have been passed, the main accused in this case i.e., A.1 (impersonator) is still absconding and not brought to book. A.1 is not arrested yet, which reflects that he is highly influential and manageable person. The police concerned ought to have arrested A-1 and proceeded against him. There is no proper explanation for not proceeding against A.1. The inaction of the police concerned is highly depreciable. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Telangana, to take immediate and necessary action in the matter. 19. In the result, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 as well as the Criminal Petition No. 6813 of 2020 are dismissed. It is made clear that the trial Court shall dispose of the subject Calendar Case, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.