1. In September, 2001, a complaint was lodged by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the second respondent - State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, K. G. Road, Banga - lore, alleging fraud and siphoning of the amounts advanced on LC facility by the bank to the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 9. It was also alleged that that fraud was committed in connivance with certain officers of the State Bank of Mysore. On the basis of the said complaint, on preliminary verification, FIR was lodged by the CBI, in RC 2(E) / 2001 - BSFC / BLR, dated 6-9-2001. It is alleged that during investigation, complicity of the present petitioners 3 to 8 in the crime was disclosed. Their names were added as accused and after investigation, a charge - sheet was placed by the CBI against the present petitioner Nos. 1 to 9. However as regards the Bank Officers, no charge - sheet was placed on the ground that no means rea for the offences was present with regard to those persons. As regards recovery of amounts taken by the present petitioners 1, 2 and 9, there were recovery proceedings. The matter had been referred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and there, on 13-2-2003 a compromise petition was filed by the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9 and the present respondent No. 2, agreeing therein that the amount due which was more than Rs. 9,00,000/- should be paid in instalments commencing from 1-1-2003 stretching upto 1-1-2007. That petition was allowed and a decree was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of compromise petition. Contending that in view of that compromise decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, the offences, if any alleged in the charge - sheet stood compounded, the present petition has been filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the accused in C.C. No. 15139/2003 praying that the proceedings therein should be quashed.

2. A perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner No. 9 had sought for LC facility from the respondent No. 2, which was granted. Later that was extended from time to time, the limit of facility extending upto 9.00 crores. It is alleged that under the guise of LC facility, the petitioners siphoned off the amounts to different companies and thereby cheated the respondent No. 2.

3. It is stated that the present first petitioner is the Chairman, the second petitioner, the Managing Director, the third fourth, seventh and eighth petitioners, the authorized signatories of the ninth petitioner, M/s. STI International Limited in favour of which the LC facilities had been sanctioned. It is alleged that the fifth and sixth petitioners, who are the Director and authorized signatories of M/s. Loiwal Steels Private Limited and M/s. G. B. Steels Private Limited respectively and other petitioners have siphoned off money through different companies leading to M/s. Steel Tubes of India Limited. The charge - sheet shows that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy and in the course of transaction wrongful gain was made by the petitioners through accounts of different companies and thereby they cheated the Industrial Finance Branch of State Bank of Mysore (respondent No. 2) as on 31-12-2002 to the extent of 9.02 crores and that thereby accused Nos. 1 to 9 (petitioners 1 to 9) committed the offence punishable under S.120 - B of the IPC and substantive offence of S.420 of IPC.

4. It is argued by Sri B. R. Nanjundaiah, the learned counsel representing the petitioners that the matter is essentially civil in nature and that the compromise arrived at by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 467/2000 puts an end to the controversy and that therefore the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In this regard, he relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Limited AIR 1996 SC 2452 : 1996 CriLJ 3501 wherein civil suits filed by