1. Petitioners are the accused in CC No.513/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court(Temporary), Thiruvananthapuram based on Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.879/2015 of Valiathura Police Station for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Annexure-A1 is the FIR. It seems that from the very beginning, that is from Annexure-A1 onwards, the offence alleged is the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. In Annexure-A1, one Dilipkumar A, who was the Chief Manager, SBT, Kochuveli Branch, was the de facto complainant/informant. As per the contents of Annexure-A1, the allegation is that the 1st accused, who was the previous employee of the SBT, Kochuveli Branch, cheated the bank by misappropriating an amount of Rs. 5,79,721/- through the accounts of A1 to A4 in the bank, for the period from 01.10.2009 to 29.06.2015. Almost all the same are the allegations in Annexure-A2 also.

3. The bank filed a civil suit as OS No.1434/2015 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the realisation of the amount. Ultimately, the matter was referred for mediation. The matter was mediated in the presence of the petitioners herein and the plaintiff/Chief Manager, Kochuveli Branch of the SBT. A successful mediation was conducted and Annexure-A3 mediation settlement agreement was prepared. A separate sheet was appended with the mediation settlement agreement under the caption “Compromise Agreement”. Annexure-A3 makes it clear that “the above case has been settled/compromised between the parties subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the sheet separately attached therewith”. The terms and conditions are noted in the said separate sheet. The last condition is clause No.6 in the Compromise Agreement, which reads-

“This matter has been fully settled and there is no dispute in this regard. The plaintiff hereby withdraws this civil suit initiated against the defendants in OS No.1434/2015. The plaintiff has no objection in closure of this matter or any proceeding in this regard.”

4. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, through Annexure-A3 mediation settlement agreement, not only that the civil suit was compromised; but also, all proceedings in that regard were also compromised and settled and therefore, there was composition of the offence under Section 420 IPC then and there through Annexure-A3. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has argued that what was settled in mediation was the civil suit alone and not the criminal proceedings. It is argued that the case number or at least the crime number would have been mentioned in Annexure-A3, had it been compromised.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied on the decision in Rumi Dhar (Smt) v. State of West Bengal and another [(2009) 6 SCC 364], wherein it was held in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 as follows:-

“14. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a given case, a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to the debtor. If in connection with obtaining the said loan, criminal offences have been committed by the persons accused thereof including the officers of the Bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably be maintainable.

15. When a settlement is arrived at by and between the creditor and the debtor, the offence committed as such does not come to an end. The judgment of a tribunal in a civil proceeding and that too when it is rendered on the basis of settlement entered into by and between the parties, would not be of much relevance in a criminal proceeding having regard to the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment in the civil proceedings will be admissible in evidence only for a limited purpose.

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