rnav conten( rhiit the said clarification "r'ouldt tr gir en during the lourse r f tr al. Butproceedingscanrlol be pc -mittei to continue eve r orr thatcountbecause the de faco colnplainant continued to be thepartner of the Firm bv the date of givrng complaint.'l hat apart, itis borne by record thiLl suppressing true and cr rcial facts, the de facto complai:;,rntinitiated criminal proc eedr ngs. Thiscannot bepermittec .Aclmittedly, no one can g )t the desired relief from a Court cl lauthrough mis represen ation or suppression of material f:t:ts.Also, as contended b1 the learned counsel for the petiiiorrers, the dispute ispr rrel''r civil in nature. Admjttedl'r, a suit lor specific perfor mance and a suit for dissolution clpartnership Firm and ren<tition of accounts were filed. ThougJ-r, as rightly projected by t re learned counsel for the de facto c omplainant, seeking civil remedies does not bar initiation of criminal proceedings, ir the case on hand, having perceived the fact that the disp ute is purely civil in nature, tlv,- de facto complainant lras suppressed the true facts en,1 initiated criminal proct edings and also that no casei s m:rde out through thep rivatecomplaint for continuationr,rf <:riminal proceedings, t ris Court is of the view that quirshment, as prayed for, is d:sir.rble.
