ORDER : 1. As both these petitions arise out of a common crime number, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned counsel Shri Ganesh Kumar R appears for the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017 who are arraigned as Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 through video-conferencing. Shri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel appears for the learned counsel Smt. Vijetha R. Naik for the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3819/2017 who are arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004. Both these petitions are filed by the respective petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, 1860, besides Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. 3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Ravi B. Naik for the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3819/2017, Shri Ganesh Kumar R. for the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017, learned Spl. PP for the CBI Shri P. Prasanna Kumar and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel Shri Ganesh Kumar R has addressed his arguments by highlighting certain facts and involvement of the accused and adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in the connected matter. Further, learned Spl. P.P. Shri P. Prasanna Kumar has addressed his arguments by referring the materials secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely one K. Venkataramaiah, Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore, had lodged a complaint against Senior Manager and Manager of Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch, Bangalore, for offences reflected in the criminal case initiated against the accused persons by the CBI. 5. The case in Cr. No. RC-4/E/2003 was registered by CBI/BSFC/BLR relating to the case in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004. The said complaint came to be registered against nine persons, namely accused Nos. 1 to 9 and charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). Accused No. 1 K. Prabhakar Rao is the Proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company and Accused Nos. 1 to 9 and charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). Accused No. 1 K. Prabhakar Rao is the Proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company and Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Production Managers, Accounts Officer and Clerk respectively working in the Company managed by Accused No. 1. But Accused No. 5 is a registered Chartered Accountant who audited and prepared returns of the Accused No. 1 Company and so also prepared returns of the said Accused No. 1 Company managed by K. Prabhakar Rao who is a Proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company. Accused Nos. 6 to 9 were the Managers working at the relevant period at Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch, Bangalore. But the sum and substance of the charge-sheet is that all accused persons were parties to a criminal conspiracy hatched during the period 1998 to 2001 to cheat Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch, Bangalore. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched among these accused, Accused No. 1 K. Prabhakar Rao who is a Proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company, S.S.I. Unit, engaged in the manufacture of injection moulded plastic components, having its office at No. 13 and 14, Eastern Block, Jayanagar Shopping Complex, Bangalore and a factory at Bommasandra Industrial Area, Hosur Road, Bangalore. But accused No. 1 K. Prabhakar Rao who is the Proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company had been given various categories of credit facilities, got periodically extended working capital limits in favour of the said company by Canara Bank Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch, Bangalore by fraudulently furnishing some bogus audited financial statements certified by Accused No. 5/B.L. Shastry, Chartered Accountant, falsely declaring huge profits as against the actual loss, reporting to the Income Tax Authorities and also by producing false and fake purchase orders favouring the Phoenix Plasts Company, for supply of materials and had availed the funds sanctioned as working capital limits by discounting some false of fake bills without any genuine trade transaction. Consequently, Accused No. 1 had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 16,25,17,933.22/- to the Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch. Consequently, Accused No. 1 had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 16,25,17,933.22/- to the Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch. In pursuance of the complaint filed by the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore, the crime came to be registered by the CBI Bank Security and Frauds Cell (for short BS & FC). 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 5 has contended that the initiation of the criminal proceedings against these accused for the offences reflected in the charge-sheet is contrary to law and so also in the given facts and circumstances of the case. That these accused have not committed any sort of an offence with an intention to cheat the Canara Bank as alleged in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Agency. But they were facing financial crisis due to loss in their business and they could not repay the amount availed from the Canara Bank. But they did not have any motive either to cheat the Canara Bank or to cause financial loss to the said Bank. Therefore, the offences leveled against them do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences, for them to face trial. 7. The Canara Bank who is an instrument of the complaint by approaching the CBI in order to initiate criminal prosecution by recording an FIR and based upon their complaint, the criminal law was set into motion. But the Canara Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners/accused before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003. But in the said recovery proceedings, the petitioners said to be arraigned as accused and Canara Bank have got the matter amicably settled by entering into a compromise before the DRT. As according to the arrival of a settlement between them, the petitioner K. Prabhakar Rao who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 and also being the Proprietor of Phoenix Plasts Company had paid the entire amount of Rs. 7.50 Crores as per the settlement. Despite of arrival of a settlement, the CBI has laid a charge-sheet against the accused with an intention of causing harassment and to fix them to face trial. 7.50 Crores as per the settlement. Despite of arrival of a settlement, the CBI has laid a charge-sheet against the accused with an intention of causing harassment and to fix them to face trial. The charge-sheet has been laid against the accused insofar as the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and when once the Canara Bank, that is the Banking Institution had come forward for settlement before the DRT in O.A. No. 77/2003 as per the terms of settlement arrived at, the ingredients of the said offences are not attracted against the petitioners as they did not have any such fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat Canara Bank and thereby cause loss to a huge amount. 8. It is settled legal position that when the matter was settled by arrival of a compromise between the parties, no purpose would be served in proceeding further against the firm. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CBI SPE SIU (X) New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2453. But the second respondent in his anxiety to implicate and initiate criminal proceedings against Accused Nos. 6 to 9 who were the officials of Canara Bank for their action of granting various loans and advances to petitioners, has mechanically initiated criminal prosecution against them though the dues were paid by the first accused to the Canara Bank. 9. Insofar as the allegation of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine against the petitioners, are falsity, as the petitioners have fulfilled the terms and conditions of the compromise said to have arrived at between the parties before the DRT even prior to filing of a charge-sheet against them by the Investigating Agency. But the petitioner K. Prabhakar Rao and others have been transacting with the Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch since past 20 years and they were in goodwill with the customers of the Bank. But the Bank collected several crores of rupees in terms of interest from the first petitioner/accused no. 1 out of various transactions. Considering all such aspects, the Canara Bank had agreed for a one time settlement when the petitioners had come forward to settle the dues to the Canara Bank and the Canara Bank had thus received Rs. But the Bank collected several crores of rupees in terms of interest from the first petitioner/accused no. 1 out of various transactions. Considering all such aspects, the Canara Bank had agreed for a one time settlement when the petitioners had come forward to settle the dues to the Canara Bank and the Canara Bank had thus received Rs. 7.50 crores from the first accused/K. Prabhakar Rao. Therefore, it is made clear that there is no loss caused to the Canara Bank and on that ground alone, it requires for intervention to quash the entire charge-sheet laid against the accused persons. So far as offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC, the condition precedent for forgery is making a false document or false electronic record or part thereof. But in the present case, it does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioners have produced false supply bills for getting discounting facilities, would not arise. But it is pertinent to note that the petitioners were supplying materials to various companies/firms in respect of which they have produced supply bills and get them discounted through accused Nos. 6 to 9 and the same are not concocted or fabricated. Therefore, the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are not attracted against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 5. Insofar as offences under Section 120B of the IPC which is in respect of criminal conspiracy, but the ingredients are lacking to attract the said offence as there is no conspiratorial agreement among the accused on their part for getting the loan sanctioned. On this premise, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners seeks to consider the grounds urged and to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 and consequently seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons. 10. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following citations: 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta, (1996) 5 SCC 591 : “29. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of civil dispute. Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta, (1996) 5 SCC 591 : “29. In the facts of the case, it appears to us that there is enough justification for the High Court to hold that the case was basically a matter of civil dispute. It Banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues of the Banks on account of credit facility and said suits have been compromised on receiving the payments from the concerned Companies. Even if an offence of cheating is prima-facie constituted, such offence is compoundable offence and compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by the banks, for all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of cheating. It is also to be noted that long time has elapsed since the complaint was filed in 1987. It may also be indicated that although such FIRs were filed in 1987 and 1989, the Banks have not chosen to institute any case against the alleged erring official despite allegations made against them in the FIRs. Considering that the investigations had not been completed till 1991 even though there was no impediment to complete the investigations and further investigations are still pending and also considering the fact that the claims of the Banks have been compromised on receiving payments, we do not think that the said complaints should be pursued any further, In our view proceeding further with the complaints will not be expedient. In the special facts of the case, it appears to us the decision of the High Court in quashing the complaints does not warrant any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals.” 2. In the special facts of the case, it appears to us the decision of the High Court in quashing the complaints does not warrant any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals.” 2. Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai vs. Narendra Lal Jain, (2014) 5 SCC 364 : “Present respondent-accused had conspired with bank officials and had projected inflated figures of creditworthiness of companies represented by them and in this manner, had secured more advances/loans from Bank, than they were entitled to - FIRs were registered against respondent-accused and several officers of Bank of Maharashtra - Bank had instituted suits also for recovery of amounts claimed to be due from respondents - Said suits were disposed of in terms of consent decrees upon receipt of payment by the claimants - Respondent-accused charged under Ss.120-B/420 IPC - Civil liability of respondents to pay the amount to Bank already settled amicably - No subsisting grievance of Bank in this regard brought to notice of Supreme Court - While offence under S. 420 IPC is compoundable, offence under S. 120-B IPC is not - In the present case, having regard to the fact that liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by Bank had been mutually settled between parties and accused had accepted liability in this regard, High Court, held, rightly invoked its power under S. 482 Cr.PC - Continuance of criminal proceeding which are likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke extraordinary power of High Court under S. 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.120-B/420 - Cheating - Simultaneous criminal and civil action - Quashment of criminal proceedings when warranted.” 3. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 : Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss.482 and 320 - Quashment of non-compoundable offences pursuant to settlement arrived at by parties - Considerations for - Exercise of judicial restraint vis-à-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between parties which may amount to abuse of process of court and futile exercise - In present case, quashment of criminal proceedings based on settlement, by High Court, upheld - Penal Code, 1860, S.120-B r/w Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471. 4. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala, Punjab, a compromise was arrived at between the Bank and the respondent-company under a One Time Settlement scheme of the Bank, through which sums of Rs. 6 crores and Rs. 1.25 crores were deposited by the respondents and acknowledged by the Bank vide letter dated 11.11.2009. Thereafter the Bank released the securities and guarantees of the respondents, withdrew the recovery proceeding pending in the DRT and stated vide the aforesaid letter dated 11.11.2009 that nothing was due from the respondents to the Bank. An application filed by respondent No. 1 for compounding of offences under Section 320(2) of IPC, was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that Section 471 read with 468 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. 5. Thereafter, the respondents approached the High Court, invoking its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. SIA-2001-E-0006 dated 28.12.2001 and also the resultant proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala, Punjab, on the basis of aforesaid settlement. The High Court by its judgment dated 2nd June, 2011, relied on its Full Bench judgment in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab Another, 2007 (4) CTC 769 and on the basis of settlement of dispute, quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents.” 4. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. B.B. Agarwal, (2019) 15 SCC 522 : “12. The High Court was of the view that on resettlement of accounts, the parties obtained the consent decree from DRT and paid the entire sum, therefore, there is no live issue, which now survives. The High Court then examined the question as to whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to continue on its merits. After examining this issue with reference to charges and documents, the High Court held that no criminality issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties. 13. The High Court then examined the question as to whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to continue on its merits. After examining this issue with reference to charges and documents, the High Court held that no criminality issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties. 13. We are also of the view that there arises no occasion to prosecute the respondents as was rightly held by the High Court while quashing the criminal case against the respondents.” These are all the reliances which are squarely applicable to the present case in the given facts and circumstances and regarding involvement in alleged commission of offences. Therefore, considering the ratio of reliances and so also in view of the fact that the matter had ended in compromise before the DRT in O.A. No. 77/2003, the learned counsel seeks to quash the criminal proceedings leveled against the accused and so also to set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/accused nos. 1, 5, 6 to 9 under Sections 227 and 239 Cr.P.C. and directing to frame charges against the accused respectively. 11. Learned counsel Shri Ganesh Kumar R for the petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017 who have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 6 to 9, contends that the Trial Court did not consider the materials secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. The parties had arrived at a settlement of the dispute before the DRT, Bangalore, in O.A. No. 77/2003, in terms of which Accused No. 1 K. Prabhakar Rao had paid a sum of Rs. 7.50 crores to the Canara Bank by way of one time settlement resulting in culmination of the criminal proceedings that was initiated and also pending against the accused persons. Therefore, there is no consequence to initiate the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. The Trial Court had not appreciated the material facts and has lost sight of the fact that the first accused/K. Prabhakar Rao in fact was doing the subject bills transactions since 1994 with same drawees, that is M/s. United Machinary works, Coimbatore and their collection firm at Hosur. On the other hand, Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9/petitioners in Crl. Pet. On the other hand, Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9/petitioners in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017 have worked in the concerned branch of Canara Bank only for a short period, which is almost 10 to 15 months between 1998 to 2001. The petitioners who are arraigned as accused have carried out their orders and they have not obviously initiated on their own any new discounts or any new parties/drawees transactions. It is a matter of record that what was sanctioned by top management was being allowed to continue and there was no reason to suspect the bona-fides of the transactions of the first accused by Accused Nos. 6 to 9. But the Trial Court has committed an error by observing that accused Nos. 1 to 9 are parties to the criminal conspiracy hatched during the period between 1994 and 2001 to cheat the Canara Bank. 12. But these accused are not at all concerned in respect of the allegations made against them. But they have been arraigned as accused in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Agency. This important matter though finds place in the charge-sheet but the court below has lost sight of the fact while considering the application filed by Accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. Further, the counsel also adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel Shri Ravi B. Naik for accused Nos. 1 and 5 and so also ratio of reliance referred to by the Senior counsel and the same has been extended to these petitioners arraigned as accused Nos. 6 to 9. On all these premise, the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ganesh Kumar R seeks to allow the petition and thereafter to quash the proceedings pending against them in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 and also to set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Shri P. Prasanna Kumar has taken me through the charge-sheeted materials regarding the criminal conspiracy with an intention to cause loss of huge amount to the Canara Bank, that is at Rs. 16.25 crores. Therefore, the accused do not deserve to be absolved from the offences lugged against them. That the accused have caused loss to the bank by hatching a criminal conspiracy among themselves through its fraudulent acts. 16.25 crores. Therefore, the accused do not deserve to be absolved from the offences lugged against them. That the accused have caused loss to the bank by hatching a criminal conspiracy among themselves through its fraudulent acts. Merely because One Time Settlement was arrived at between Accused No. 1/K. Prabhakar Rao and the Canara Bank in O.A. No. 77/2003 at Rs. 7.50 crores, cannot be a ground for seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons, as there is an independent role played by each one of the accused who have cheated the Canara Bank creating fake documents. Therefore, the prosecution has produced strong materials to attract each one of the offences under the IPC and so also offences under the PC Act, 1988. The Canara Bank initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT in O.A. No. 77/2003 for recovery of dues against the accused/Prabhakar Rao. But the matter was settled between the parties and the parties had entered into a One Time Settlement wherein an amount of Rs. 7.50 crores had been paid by the accused Shri K. Prabhakar Rao to the Canara Bank. Merely because of one time settlement was arrived at between the accused and the Canara Bank in O.A. No. 77/2003, it will not be a justifiable ground for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings pending against the accused in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 that too in respect of offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, 1860 and so also offences under the PC Act. The accused have committed the charge-sheeted offences. Therefore, the Investigating Agency has thoroughly investigated the case by recording the statement of witnesses in the charge-sheet at CW-1 to CW-105 and produced voluminous documents, that is more than 1300 documents and these voluminous documents have been secured by the Investigating Agency/CBI during the course of the investigation and laid a charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, 1860 besides Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. But the prosecution material which find place in the charge-sheeted case, it reveals that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched among the other accused with first accused K. Prabhakar Rao, the Proprietor of Pheonix Plasts Company by which an audit report and Income Tax Returns were submitted through the services obtained by Accused No. 1 from Accused No. 5 who is a registered Chartered Accountant and Accused Nos. 6 to 9 who are Banking Managers who worked in Canara Bank during the year 1998-2001. All these accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat Canara Bank and create loss to the tune of Rs. 16.25 crores. The materials secured by the Investigating Agency require to be subjected to test. But it is the duty or domain vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence to prove that wrongful loss was caused the Canara Bank in a huge amount, that the accused/petitioners had siphoned off an amount of Rs. 16.25 crores. But accused No. 1 Prabhakar Rao is a prime accused in the alleged crime who is the one responsible for criminal conspiracy in order to cheat the Bank. Merely because the matter was settled by way of a One Time Settlement between K. Prabhakar Rao and Canara Bank at Rs. 7.50 crore and consequently O.A. No. 77/2003 initiated by Canara Bank has been withdrawn, would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. However, the Investigating Agency, that is CBI has extensively proceeded with investigation by collecting material documents and laid the charge-sheet against the accused. Though the offences are not compoundable offences, the One Time Settlement was made by accused K. Prabhakar Rao/prime accused and the Canara Bank has absolved the liability in respect of the offences lugged against accused persons. 14. The oral and documentary evidence, that is the material documents secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and so also expert’s opinion secured from the GEQD either for raising some presumptive value for commission of offences in respect of conspiratorial agreement among all the accused, the same requires to be tested before the Trial Court. In support of this contention, the learned Spl. In support of this contention, the learned Spl. P.P. for CBI has produced the judgment in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issues in respect of the scope of Section 482 and so also to exercise inherent powers for quashing the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings. Some guiding factors have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The said portion reads thus: “16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised: (i) to secure the ends of justice. (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or mis-demeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 18. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.” 15. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI specifically presses into service Point No. 16.10 to contend that the High Court should decline to quash in cases involving financial or economic fraud or mis-demeanour. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code. Whereas in the instant case, the allegation in the FIR would demonstrate the role of accused. The case involves allegations of forgery, creating fake documents and wrongful loss siphoned at Rs. 16.25 crores. 16. Though several judgments have been relied by the learned Spl. P.P. for the CBI, he specifically relies on the judgment of the following matters, in support of his case: 1. Inspector of Police, CBI vs. B. Raja Gopal and Others, (2002) 9 SCC 533 : Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Accused charged under Ss.420, 468, 471 IPC for defrauding a bank - Merely for the reason that a compromise had been reached between the bank officials and the accused and accused paid the disputed amount found due to the bank, held, High Court was not justified in quashing the trial which had reached almost the penultimate stage - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.420, 468 and 471. 2. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : 46. 2. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 351 : 46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that mere re-payment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case. 3. Rumi Dhar vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 364 : 16. It is not a case where the parties have entered into a compromise in relation to the criminal charges. In fact, the offence alleged against the accused being an offence against the society and the allegations contained in the first information report having been investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the bank could not have entered into any settlement at all. The CBI has not filed any application for withdrawal of the case. Not only a charge-sheet has been filed, charges have also been framed. 20. A prima-facie case has been found out against the appellant. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference therewith. 4. Sushil Suri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2011) SCC 2939: 20. A bare reading of the afore-extracted paragraphs would indicate that the question posed for consideration in that case was with regard to the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings in the facts and circumstances of a given case and not in relation to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where it should exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. In our opinion, Nikhil Merchant (supra) does not hold as an absolute proposition of law that whenever a dispute between the parties, having overtones of a civil dispute with criminal facets is settled between them, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, should be quashed. In our opinion, Nikhil Merchant (supra) does not hold as an absolute proposition of law that whenever a dispute between the parties, having overtones of a civil dispute with criminal facets is settled between them, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, should be quashed. Similarly, in B.S. Joshi and Others (supra), which has been relied upon in Nikhil Merchant (supra), the question for consideration was whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or Complaint for offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that Section 320 cannot limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. a well settled proposition of law. We are of the opinion that Nikhil Merchant (supra) as also the other two judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellant are clearly distinguishable on facts. It needs little emphasis that even one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases and blindly placing reliance on a decision is never proper. It is trite that while applying ratio, the Court may not pick out a word or sentence from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said question arose for consideration. [See: Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 649 : 2005 AIR SCW 2985 : AIR 2005 SC 26770]. In this regard, the following words of Lord Denning, quoted in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, (2002) 3 SCC 496 : 2002 AIR SCW 500 : AIR 2002 SC 834 , are also quite apt: “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” 21. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” 21. In the present case, having regard to the modus operandi adopted by the accused, as projected in the charge-sheet and briefly referred to in Para 17 (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as also by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. As noted above, the accused had not only duped PSB, they had also availed of depreciation on the machinery, which was never purchased and used by them, causing loss to the exchequer, a serious economic offence against the society. 22. The view we have taken above, gets fortified by a recent decision of this Court in Rumi Dhar (supra), wherein while dealing with a fact situation, akin to the present case, referring to the decision in Nikhil Merchant (supra), the Court declined to quash criminal proceedings in that case, observing thus: “24. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. Exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Court, in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, would not direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima-facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing the charge.” 23. We respectfully concur with the afore-extracted observations. In the final analysis, we hold that merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability. Therefore, the charge-sheet against him cannot be quashed. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the final analysis, we hold that merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability. Therefore, the charge-sheet against him cannot be quashed. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The Trial Court shall now proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or in this judgment on the merits of the charge-sheet. 5. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagjit Singh, (2013) 10 SCC 686 : 15. The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank pursuant to an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a compromise between the offender and the victim. The offences when committed in relation with Banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Prima-facie, one may state that the bank as the victim in such cases but, in fact, the society in general, including customers of the Bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice. 6. Gopakumar B. Nair vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 800 : 13. The decision in Gian Singh (supra) holding the decision rendered in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and other cases to be correct is only an approval of the principle of law enunciated in the said decisions i.e. that a non- compoundable offence can also be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of a settlement between the offender and the victim. It is not an affirmation, for there can be none, that the facts in Nikhil Merchant (supra) justified/called for the due application of the aforesaid principle of law. It is not an affirmation, for there can be none, that the facts in Nikhil Merchant (supra) justified/called for the due application of the aforesaid principle of law. Also, neither Nikhil Merchant (supra) nor Gian Singh (supra) can be understood to mean that in a case where charges are framed for commission of non-compoundable offences or for criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the PC Act, if the disputes between the parties are settled by payment of the amounts due, the criminal proceedings should invariably be quashed. What really follows from the decision in Gian Singh (supra) 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 the power under Section 482 will always depend on the facts of each case. Furthermore, in the exercise of such power, the note of caution sounded in Gian Singh (supra) must be kept in mind. This, in our view, is the correct ratio of the decision in Gian Singh (supra). 14. The aforesaid principle of law may now be applied to the facts of the present case. At the very outset a detailed narration of the charges against the accused-appellant has been made. The appellant has been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the offence under Section 13(1)(d). He is also substantively charged under Section 420 (compoundable with the leave of the Court) and Section 471 (non-compoundable). A careful consideration of the facts of the case would indicate that unlike in Nikhil Merchant (supra) no conclusion can be reached that the substratum of the charges against the accused-appellant in the present case is one of cheating nor are the facts similar to those in Narendra Lal Jain (supra) where the accused was charged under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC only. The offences are certainly more serious; they are not private in nature. The charge of conspiracy is to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused has also been charged for commission of the substantive offence under Section 471 IPC. Though the amounts due have been paid the same is under a private settlement between the parties unlike in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and Narendra Lal Jain (supra) where the compromise was a part of the decree of the Court. The accused has also been charged for commission of the substantive offence under Section 471 IPC. Though the amounts due have been paid the same is under a private settlement between the parties unlike in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and Narendra Lal Jain (supra) where the compromise was a part of the decree of the Court. There is no acknowledgement on the part of the bank of the exoneration of the criminal liability of the accused-appellant unlike the terms of compromise decree in the aforesaid two cases. In the totality of the facts stated above, if the High Court has taken the view that the exclusion spelt out in Gian Singh (supra) applies to the present case and on that basis had come to the conclusion that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to quash the criminal case against the accused, we cannot find any justification to interfere with the said decision. 7. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 : Held, such economic offences are public wrongs or crimes committed against society and gravity and magnitude thereof affect public at large - Courts must not be swayed by return of money to bank which has been defrauded but must also consider society at large - Instant offence was well planned, and committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to society at large - Cheating of bank exposits fiscal impurity and such financial fraud is an offence against society at large - To quash proceedings merely on ground of settlement with bank amounts to misplaced sympathy - Proceedings restored - Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws - Banks - Bank scam/Criminal conspiracy/Embezzlement/Forgery - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B - Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S.5(2) r/w S.5(1)(d). 17. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved. 8. State of Karnataka vs. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 263 : Corruption is a vice of insatiable avarice for self- aggrandizement by the unscrupulous, taking unfair advantage of their power and authority and those in public office also, in breach of the institutional norms, mostly backed by minatory loyalists. Both the corrupt and the corrupter are indictable and answerable to the society and the country as a whole. This is more particularly in re the peoples’ representatives in public life committed by the oath of the office to dedicate oneself to the unqualified welfare of the laity, by faithfully and conscientiously discharging their duties attached thereto in accordance with the Constitution, free from fear or favour or affection or ill-will. A self-serving conduct in defiance of such solemn undertaking in infringement of the community’s confidence reposed in them is therefore a betrayal of the promise of allegiance to the Constitution and a condemnable sacrilege. Not only such a character is an anathema to the preambulor promise of justice, liberty, equality, fraternal dignity, unity and integrity of the country, which expectantly ought to animate the life and spirit of every citizen of this country, but also is an unpardonable onslaught on the constitutional religion that forms the bedrock of our democratic polity. This pernicious menace stemming from moral debasement of the culpables, apart from destroying the sinews of the nation’s structural and moral setup, forges an unfair advantage of the dishonest over the principled, widening as well the divide between the haves and have not. This pernicious menace stemming from moral debasement of the culpables, apart from destroying the sinews of the nation’s structural and moral setup, forges an unfair advantage of the dishonest over the principled, widening as well the divide between the haves and have not. Not only this has a demoralising bearing on those who are ethical, honest, upright and enterprising, it is visibly antithetical to the quintessential spirit of the fundamental duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity to raise the nation to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This virulent affliction triggers an imbalance in the society’s existential stratas and stalls constructive progress in the overall well-being of the nation, besides disrupting its dynamics of fiscal governance. It encourages defiance of the rule of law and the propensities for easy materialistic harvests, whereby the society’s soul stands defiled, devalued and denigrated. 9. M/s Kusum Alloys Limited and Another vs. The Delhi Special Establishment by CBI and Another, Crl. Pet. No. 1274 of 2017: 13. It is in this background, Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has very heavily relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, 2017 Crl. L.J. 2269 to buttress his argument that continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners in the instant case would not sub-serve the ends of justice particularly, in the background of settlement having been arrived at between the Bank and the borrowing company under One Time Settlement Scheme of the Bank, whereunder the lending Bank has issued a Settlement Certificate dated 07.03.2017. He has further submitted that continuation of the proceedings against petitioners in the changed scenario, would be abuse of 15 process of law. Though at first blush said argument looks attractive, it is not so or in other words, it requires to be rejected for reasons for more than one. Firstly, in the facts obtained in the said case viz. in Sadhu Ram Singla’s case, settlement was arrived at between the Borrower and the Bank and it was held that continuation of criminal case where complainant and accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and as such continuation of criminal proceedings against accused would not be justified. in Sadhu Ram Singla’s case, settlement was arrived at between the Borrower and the Bank and it was held that continuation of criminal case where complainant and accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and as such continuation of criminal proceedings against accused would not be justified. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court has noticed in Sadhu Ram Singla’s case that during the pendency of proceedings before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patiala, Punjab, a compromise was arrived at between the Bank and respondent-company under a One Time Settlement scheme of the Bank and Bank had released the securities and guarantees of respondents and withdrew recovery proceedings pending in DRT and had intimated nothing was due from respondents to the Bank. An application under Section 320(2) IPC was filed for compounding offence 16 and it came to be dismissed by trial Court and allowed by the High Court. While confirming the said order of High Court, observations came to be made by Hon’ble Apex Court. In fact, the point of law canvassed had been kept open with the following observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court: “16. In view of the discussion we made in the preceding paragraphs, in our opinion, it would be proper to keep the said point of law open. However, in the given facts, we dismiss this appeal. 17. Yet again, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 having enumerated the contingencies under which Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court, though not exhaustive but illustrative, has further held that exception to the principle set out in the propositions at paragraphs 16.8 and 16.9, economic offences involving the financial, land, economic well being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a more dispute between private 20 disputants. It has been further held that High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or mis-demeanour. It has been further held that High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or mis-demeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” The ratio of reliances rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case and so also role of each of the accused in respect of the offences. Therefore, the learned Spl. P.P. is seeking to consider the ratio of reliances and so also involvement of each of the accused in committing the offences and seeking for dismissal of both these petitions filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 to 9 respectively. 17. It is in this backdrop of the contention as taken by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Crl. Pet. No. 3819/2017 and so also, the contention taken by learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 6 to 9 in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017 and the counter made by learned Spl. P.P. for respondent-CBI, primarily it is relevant to refer the ratio of reliance rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. B.B. Agarwal and Others, (2019) 15 SCC 522 . The said reliance is beneficial for consideration of the material facts and so also, the charges lugged against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that “Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Amicable settlement between the parties - No outstanding dues payable by accused to public sector bank which they had defrauded - Proceedings, held, rightly quashed.” 18. In the instant case, the CBI laid the charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 9. But in these petitions seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against Accused Nos. 1 and 5 and 6 to 9 respectively in Spl. In the instant case, the CBI laid the charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 9. But in these petitions seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against Accused Nos. 1 and 5 and 6 to 9 respectively in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 and to set-aside the order dated 18.11.2011 rejecting the application filed by them under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accused No. 1 - Prabhakar Rao who is the proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company is the customer of the Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex branch, Bangalore. Based upon the complaint filed by the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bangalore against the Senior Manager and Manager of Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping Complex Branch, Bangalore for the offence of cheating and also for other offences, the investigating agency registered the case in R.C. No. 4/E/2003 and thereafter thoroughly investigation has been done and the charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons. But the accused are alleged to have produced fake bills without any genuine trade transaction and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 16,25,17,933.22 to the Canara Bank. The Canara Bank had simultaneously initiated the recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003 wherein Accused No. 1-Prabhakar Rao and the Canara Bank arrived at settlement and the accused No. 1 paid Rs. 7.50 crores as ‘one time settlement’ which was accepted by the complainant/Bank and the recovery suit filed against the accused before the Debts Recovery Tribunal came to be dismissed which clearly establish the fact that Canara Bank, Jayanagar Shopping complex Branch, did not incur any loss as alleged in the charge-sheet. The accused No. 1 company was transacting with Canara Bank from past 20 years and complainant bank had collected several crores rupees as interest from accused No. 1. Therefore, the complainant bank has not sustained any loss. It is also the contention that the bank after filing O.A. No. 77/2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore against accused No. 1 for recovery of dues, subsequently settled the case out of court after receiving Rs. 7.50 crores together with overdue interest in full and final settlement of claim. Therefore, a prudent person can infer that no financial loss was caused to the bank and on the other hand, bank has earned interest and it did not sustain any loss. 19. 7.50 crores together with overdue interest in full and final settlement of claim. Therefore, a prudent person can infer that no financial loss was caused to the bank and on the other hand, bank has earned interest and it did not sustain any loss. 19. Though the allegation is made against Accused No. 1-Prabhakar Rao that he being the proprietor of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company but he was developing and transacting with the Canara Bank from the past 20 years and the complainant has collected several crores of rupees as in the terms of interest from Accused No. 1 as there was goodwill in between Canara Bank and accused No. 1. Therefore, it is said that the complainant Bank has not sustained any loss insofar as the accused were hatching the criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged offences and also wrongful loss to the Canara Bank. The CBI has taken specific stand that the accused persons were hatching criminal conspiracy among themselves in order to cheat the Canara Bank and to facilitate discounting of false supply bills of M/s. Phoenix Plasts Company drawn on M/s. United Machinary Works Ltd. Hosur owned by Accused No. 1 and for arranging payments for the said false supply bills through Kite flying operations, current Account No. 774 in the fictitious name of M/s. United Machinery Works. There is no dispute that with the active connivance of Accused Nos. 6 to 9 being the public servants, as alleged, the same has resulted in wrongful loss to Canara Bank which is a motive factor and also an intention. But the concept of offence of criminal conspiracy, criminal misconduct, forgery and using of fraud documents as genuine alleged to be committed by the accused when the crime came to be registered by the CBI, even though the offences are not compoundable offences but for the one time settlement which was made between accused No. 1 and the Canara Bank, at Rs. 7.50 Crores with overdue interest even prior to the filing of charge-sheet against the accused by the CBI being an investigating agency and the one time settlement made between Accused No. 1 and the Canara Bank, will not absolve them of the criminal liability for the commission of above mentioned offences as contended. 7.50 Crores with overdue interest even prior to the filing of charge-sheet against the accused by the CBI being an investigating agency and the one time settlement made between Accused No. 1 and the Canara Bank, will not absolve them of the criminal liability for the commission of above mentioned offences as contended. That before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003 the matter came to be ended in compromise by arrival of settlement agreeing to receive Rs. 7.50 crores from accused No. 1 and accordingly the case in O.A. No. 77/2003 was withdrawn by the complainant-Canara Bank. Therefore, the settlement clearly demonstrates that only with an intention of criminal conspiracy for the purpose of cheating the Canara Bank resulted in forgery. But in terms of the compromise by arrival of settlement agreeing to receive a sum of Rs. 7.50 crores from accused No. 1 has to be considered. 20. There is no dispute that CBI being an investigating agency and during the course of investigation collected ample materials in terms of oral and documentary evidence in order to laying of the charge-sheet against the accused as under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the charge-sheet has been laid against the accused persons who are required to be facing of trial. But the charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery using some forged documents as genuine by accused Nos. 1 to 9. However, the investigating agency/CBI has recorded the statement of relevant witnesses at CWs. 1 to 105 and so also, produced voluminous documents to the tune of more than 1300 documents. Though these documents have been secured by the investigating agency but each of the document having a pivotal role on the part of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. But the duty cast upon the prosecution and so also, the domain vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt by facilitating the worthwhile evidence in order to securing conviction for the offence lugged against the accused. But the duty cast upon the prosecution and so also, the domain vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt by facilitating the worthwhile evidence in order to securing conviction for the offence lugged against the accused. But in the instant case, the Canara Bank which is an instrument to register the crime by the CBI and in the meanwhile, of the proceedings of a criminal in nature, the recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 77/2003 was initiated and the same ended in compromise in terms of the compromise arrived between Accused No. 1 and Canara Bank in one time settlement at Rs. 7.50 crores. Even taken into the face value of the statements of CWs. 1 to 105 said to have been recorded by the investigating agency that documents find place in the charge-sheet but the oral as well as documentary evidence which is facilitated by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. No doubt, CW.1 has stated that on being shown the documents by the CBI he stated certain material facts. Even there are number of documents produced along with the charge-sheet laid by the CBI showing the complicity of crime against Accused Nos. 1 and 5 and other accused before this Court. The prosecution relied on the statements of CWs. 2 to 7, 14, 17, 20, 22 to 27 and 34 to 36 and 40 and other important material witnesses. These witnesses are required to be tested before the trial Court, but each of the witnesses are required to withstand their statements to prove the guilt of the accused. But the recovery proceedings initiated by the Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was withdrawn in terms of compromise arrived in one time settlement at Rs. 7.50 crores. Therefore, there is no criminality issue surviving qua those accused, who are alive so as to allow the prosecuting agency to continue with criminal trial on merits or it would be an abuse of process. Certainly, the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised in order to avoid abuse of process of law and so also, secure the ends of justice and so also, miscarriage of justice as wherein the gravamen of the accused would be the petitioners who are before this Court. Certainly, the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised in order to avoid abuse of process of law and so also, secure the ends of justice and so also, miscarriage of justice as wherein the gravamen of the accused would be the petitioners who are before this Court. Even the offences are under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC inclusive of offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 21. Accused No. 1 - Prabhakar Rao who is aged 80 years and he is in fag end of his life and he has paid amount of Rs. 7.50 Crores in terms of the settlement between him and the Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 77/2003. Therefore, it is said that no occasion to arise in prosecuting the case against the accused even for criminal conspiracy hatching among themselves in order to cheat the Canara Bank as alleged. But it is specifically said that there is no criminality issues for those accused. The criminality of issues arises of the nature of this kind. But Canara Bank who is an instrument of registering the crime by the CBI relating siphoning of huge amount and huge loss to the Canara Bank. But simultaneously initiated recovery proceedings at Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 77/2003 and in that recovery proceeding, the matter ended in compromise and one time settlement at Rs. 7.50 crores came to be paid by Accused No. 1 to the complainant-Canara Bank. The said amount is paid by accused No. 1 with overdue interest. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties accused No. 1 and Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and paid a sum of Rs. 7.50 Crores. Therefore, there is no life of issues between the parties which now survives. Therefore, in the instant case, the question that arises for consideration is whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the trial Court to continue the proceedings on merits. But after examining the issues with regard to the huge loss to the Canara Bank where the allegation is made in the complaint by the Canara Bank against Accused Nos. But after examining the issues with regard to the huge loss to the Canara Bank where the allegation is made in the complaint by the Canara Bank against Accused Nos. 1 to 9 but simultaneously initiated the recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003 and in that recovery proceedings both accused No. 1 and Canara Bank arrived at a one time settlement and accordingly, Accused No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 7.50 crores and it indicates the modus operandi of the crime and so also the intention of Canara Bank by initiating the criminal prosecution and so also, it is only with an intention to recover the loss of huge amount, accordingly, in terms of the settlement arrived between Accused No. 1 and the Canara Bank in one time settlement at Rs. 7.50 Crores. Therefore, it is said that no criminality issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties. 22. Insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1489 held as under: “In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s has inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, the power is vested with the trial Court in appreciating the evidence which facilitated by the prosecution and similarly, the defense. But it is based upon the materials which secured by the IO during the course of investigation both oral and documentary evidence. But it is based upon the materials which secured by the IO during the course of investigation both oral and documentary evidence. But in the instant case, the matter was settled between Accused No. 1 and the Canara Bank in O.A. No. 77/2003 as in one time settlement of Rs. 7.50 Crores. Accordingly, the Canara Bank had accepted the said amount. Therefore, it is said that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC inclusive of Sections 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not find place. Hence, there is no worth in it to proceed further. But fraudulently and so also, dishonestly creating fake bill or documents in order to cheat the Canara Bank, but it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 23. The Doctrine of criminal justice delivery system is that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are clouds of doubts that arise in the evidence of prosecution and that benefit of doubt it shall be held in favour of the accused alone. In the instant case, the complainant-Canara Bank even made to register the crime against the accused person and as accordingly, the CBI had registered the case in RC No. 4/E/2003 and proceeded in further for investigation and thoroughly investigation has been done and charge-sheet has been laid by citing CWs. 1 to 105 and voluminous documents to the tune of 1300 documents were produced. But it is the duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence which is the cardinal principle of the criminal justice delivery system. In the instant case, it requires to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. if not, the gravamen of the accused i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 5 and 6 to 9 would be sufferers. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is stated that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 24. Though the materials for which secured by the CBI even it is under the mitigating circumstances but saving of inherent power of High court under Section 482 it postulates that ends of justice would better served if valuable time is required to be spent. Though Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage even to delay the trial which would enable to win over the witnesses or disinterest in giving the evidence ultimately results in miscarriage of justice. But the case in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 which is pending for trial against the accused and it is almost all completion of 16 years. But the said case has not reached finality against the offences which lugged against the accused. Though the CBI being an investigating agency collected voluminous documents to the tune of 1300 documents and cited witnesses CWs. 1 to 105, but it is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, judicially and judiciously. The power being an extra ordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. These considerations are to be kept in mind to prevent abuse of process of the court which is primarily the main object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is required to be exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, but there shall be justification for that. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid and reasons and findings, it is said that there are substances in the contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 5 and so also, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 6 to 9 respectively who have taken several contentions in these petitions. But because of arrival of settlement between accused No. 1 who is the prime accused with the complainant- Canara Bank in one time settlement at Rs. 7.50 crores before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003. Though the prosecution has to be continued against the accused, but it is only an empty formality for ending of the case. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. 7.50 crores before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 77/2003. Though the prosecution has to be continued against the accused, but it is only an empty formality for ending of the case. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. In the instant case the Canara Bank who is the instrument for registration of the crime by the CBI and the criminal law was sent into motion, it is based upon the complaint filed by the Canara bank. But before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 77/2003 the very Canara Bank has settled the issues with Accused No. 1. Mere because the criminal law was set into motion on filing of a complaint, it cannot be the cardinal principle for continuity of proceedings as wherein the recovery proceedings as in civil in nature of O.A. No. 77/2003 ended in compromise between Accused No. 1 and Canara Bank. Consequently, in this petition it is required to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to prevent abuse of process of Court, if not exercised, certainly the gravamen of the accused Nos. 1 and 5 and 6 to 9 respectively would be the sufferers. 25. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Crl. Pet. No. 3819/2017 and the petition filed by petitioners/Accused Nos. 6 to 9 in Crl. Pet. No. 3817/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 dated 18.11.2011 is set-aside and consequently, the criminal proceedings of Spl. C.C. No. 243/2004 against the aforesaid accused are hereby quashed. Whatever the observations made in this order, it shall not influence the mind of the trial Court in respect of remaining Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. But the case shall be disposed of on merits. All contentions are kept open. In view of disposal of the criminal petition, I.A. No. 1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.