IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 4220 OF 2009 Ismail Kadar Khan & Anr. ..... ..... ...Applicants. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... ...Respondents. Mr.Mishra i/by Mr.A.M.Sarogi, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 3rd March, 2010. PC: Not on board. Mentioned. The applicants have filed the present application for quashing and setting aside the FIR being MECR No.4/08 has been registered under the provisions of sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 read with section 34 of IPC at the behest of respondent No.1. 2. It is the contention of the applicants that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. It is submitted that the transaction is pertaining to a flat. 3. The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and respondent No.3 on one hand and respondent No.2 on other hand. 4. The applicant and respondent No.2 are personally present in the Court and they reiterate the the fact of amicable settlement and dispute between the parties. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held : “that in disputes where the question involved is of a 1 purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” 6. Hence I find that no purpose would be served in keeping proceedings pending since the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. In that view of the matter rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 3.3.2010. 2