SREENI PARAMESWARAN Vs. P.C. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

(2.) PRAYER in the petition reads as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is relating to allotment of villas by a builder to the customers. They have settled the matter out of court. Annexure -A2 is the agreement executed between the parties showing the terms of settlement between the parties. My attention is drawn to the statement dated 13.04.2012 filed by the Investigating Officer. Along with that statement, the statement of the 1st respondent/complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also produced. It has been clearly mentioned therein that the matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the accused. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the dictum in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( : 2012 (4) KLT 108 -SC), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to terminate the proceedings as continuation of the prosecution is not required as the parties have completely settled their disputes. Further, this is basically a civil dispute. Therefore, proposition of law stated in paragraph 57 of the above cited decision is relied on to seek reliefs. Paragraph 57 in Gian Singh's case reads as follows: