Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale

JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated 02.12.2020 of the Karnataka High Court by which their petition Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR has been dismissed. The case of the Appellants before the High Court of Karnataka was that the FIR which was instituted by the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 2 is primarily a civil dispute and has no criminal element and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process and consequently, they had invoked the extraordinary powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two Appellants before this Court are the Assistant Manager (Marketing) and the Managing Director of a company, which is a manufacturer of bicycles. Respondent No. 2 was given a contract, as it has been stated before this Court, for the assembly of bicycles, their transport and their delivery, at the rate of Rs. 122/- for each bicycle, and since they had assembled 83,267 bicycles, they raised invoices amounting to Rs. 1,01,58,574/- and were liable to be paid the same. However, Respondent No. 2 contends that instead, a payment of only Rs. 35,37,390/- was given by the Appellants. Hence, it was a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating and the First Information Report No. 113 of 2017 against the Appellant No. 1 was filed on 24.05.2017 Under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at P.S. Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District. Subsequently, a Chargesheet dated 30.05.2019, was filed in the court where both the Appellants were made an Accused.

3. Meanwhile, an important fact occurred, of which no importance seems to have been given by the High Court. Subsequent to the filing of FIR there is an admitted settlement between the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 by a Compromise Deed dated 27.12.2017 by which as a full and final settlement between the two parties, an additional amount of Rs. 26 lakhs were to be paid by the Appellant, which has been duly given and accepted. This amount was deposited in the account of Respondent No. 2 on 29.12.2017. This was done by the Appellants in order to give a quietus to the whole situation and to bring peace, according to the Appellants. Therefore, as of now, a total amount of Rs. 62 lakhs as against Rs. 1,01,58,574/- which was claimed by the complainant has been admittedly paid. The case of the Respondent No. 2 against the settlement dated 27.12.2017 is that the Respondent No. 2 was coerced in entering into this settlement and this is not a settlement arrived at by the free will of the complainant and therefore the prosecution of the Appellants is necessary under the criminal law. The High Court has refused to accept the contention of the Appellants that the dispute between the parties ........