1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3168 OF 2009 Sandoz Private Limited : Applicant V/s. Jalaram India & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Subodh Desai i/b. M/s.Crawford Bayley & Co., for the applicant. Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for respondent no.1. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JULY 30, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant-company has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, dated 27.5.2009 directing registration of an offence of the complaint by the respondent. The only ground on which the applicant seeks quashing of the order is that the dispute is settled between them and the complainant. 2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint, inter alia, for investigation of the alleged offence under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in 2 respect of offences under sections 420, 406, 120-B, 506(II), 477A, 403, 463 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed against two accused. Admittedly, there is no compromise between the other accused and the respondent-complainant, the other accused being the Partner of the respondent no.1. The complaint was filed by one of the Partners of the respondent no.1-firm against the applicant-company and another Partner. According to the respondent-complainant, large amount of material i.e. almost ten times the demand of the product was dumped on the applicant in collusion with other Partner. Therefore, the complainant had to clear dues worth Rs.4,69,60,325/-. Thus, the complainant charged the accused with criminal conspiracy. The details of the allegations are not relevant at this stage in view of the compromise which has been admittedly entered into between the applicant and the respondent-complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant accepts the fact of compromise and joins the applicant in the prayer for quashing the impugned order. 4. Mr.Gupte, the learned counsel for the applicant, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] where, in a similar situation, the Supreme 3 Court observed as follows:- “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as 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 utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 5. The learned counsel also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. (MANU/SC/8122/2008 = 2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) wherein, after referring to the earlier decisions on the point, Their Lordships reiterated that where the dispute between the parties is of a private nature and the complainant had decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a pragmatic 4 view of the matter and exercise its jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. Their Lordships also observed that proceedings in non-compoundable cases may also be quashed. In the present case, having regard to the nature of the dispute between the complainant and the applicant which is of a private nature and which arose inter se between the parties, I am of view that the interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). The effect of this order shall be restricted to the case of the applicant and not the other accused. S.A. BOBDE, J.