JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the accused No.2 in Ext.P4 FIR. The respondent No.4 is the defacto complainant. Altogether there are three accused. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections

408, 420, 465, 468, 477A and 380 read with 34 of the IPC . 2. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were the employees of a business concern run by the respondent No.4 under the name and style Shenoy Traders. The prosecution allegation is that, while they were working as field executives from 2000 to 2014, they misappropriated ₹40,00,000/- by forging documents.

3. Originally there were two petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No.1 was the accused No.2 and the petitioner No.2 was the accused No.3. The above case was referred to mediation. In mediation, the dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.4 was settled. Hence, the petitioner No.2 is deleted from the party array. The mediation agreement has been placed before me. It would show that the entire dispute between the petitioner(accused No.2) and the respondent No.4 has been settled amicably. As part of settlement, a sum of ₹1,10,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has sworn in an affida