acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3480 OF 2003 M/s Lok Housing Construction Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Subodh Desai, for Applicants. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. None for Respondent No.2. --- CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: 1. This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint case bearing no.2315 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The applicants alleged that during the course of business certain advances/loans were obtained from the respondent no.2 (complainant). The applicant no.1 company is dealing in construction of the buildings. The cheque dated 30.7.1996 in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was issued by the applicant no.1 company in favour of the respondent no.2. According 1 to the applicants, the said cheque was issued by way of collateral security. The cheque was presented by the respondent no.2 for encashment. The cheque was dishonoured by the bank. A demand notice issued by the respondent no.2 was also not complied with. Consequently, the respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint case bearing S.C.C. no.3455 of 1996 { Kirloskar Investments & Finance Ltd. Versus Lok Housing & Constructions Limited & Ors.}. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued process against the applicants for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by filing the criminal revision application bearing no.362 of 2003 which came to be dismissed. 3. It appears that the special civil suit bearing no.1407 of 1997 was also filed by the respondent no.2 “complainant” for recovery of the amount of advances/loans. The parties to the suit settled the dispute. They filed the consent terms. An agreement was arrived at between them on 16.3.2001. One of the agreed term was that the complaint bearing S.C.C.no.3455 of 1996 shall stand ipso facto withdrawn on making full and final payment. 4. The grievance of the applicants is that though they have made full and final payment yet the criminal complaint is not withdrawn by the 2 respondent no.2 as per the terms of the agreement. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. None appears for the respondent no.2 though served. 6. By now it is well settled that the dispute pertaining to financial matters may be allowed to be compounded by the criminal court. The statement made in the petition that entire amount has been paid is not controverted by the respondent no.2, therefore, there is no difficulty in accepting such statement. A copy of the agreement between the parties is placed on record vide Exh.`B’. On perusal of the terms of the agreement, is manifest that the criminal proceeding bearing S.C.C.3455 of 1996 was agreed to be withdrawn, on making full and final payment. The case number is changed due to transfer of the matter to another court. 7. Considering the settlement between the parties, it would be improper to continue the criminal proceedings are that may amount to abuse of the process of the court. As stated earlier, the respondent no.2 (complainant) did not appear before this court, Hence, it may be gathered that the respondent no.2 is no more interested in proceeding with the criminal trial. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and criminal proceedings referred herein above are quashed. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) 3 4