Rathnakala, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties.

2. The petitioners being the daughter and father are prosecuted by the respondent on a private complaint filed in respect of the offence under Sections 384, 420 and 500 of IPC.

3. The facts not in dispute between the parties is, the first petitioner is the widow of one Shivananda/brother of the respondent, who expired on 25.11.1999. The family of the respondent runs various businesses and trades. On the death of Shivananda, there was disturbance in the family atmosphere. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that the properties, which were to be allotted to deceased Shivananda, are already given to the first petitioner/first accused. Still she is demanding for more money. Even after receiving Rs. 69,000/- on 3.6.2000, she had filed a complaint to the local Police. However on subsequent dates, agreements were entered into between the parties. Compromise Decree was passed in the civil suit in O.S. No. 85/2000, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. Still she filed a complaint before the Chief Minister and she again filed a complaint before the CCB, Mysore and also before the Govern