1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2740 OF 2009 Amit Ramesh Jham & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar for Petitioners. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri - APP for Respondent No. 1- State. Mr. Sagar Gharat for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 08, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the proceedings in Criminal Case No.179/PW/2009 pending in the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai. 3. FIR came to be registered at the instance of the respondent no. 2 through their representative Ganesh Deepak Kotawadekar on 12th October 2006 with Kalachowki Police Station alleging violation by the petitioners 2 of the Copy Right Act and Indian Penal Code. It is basically allegation of respondent no. 2 that the petitioners had used pirated CDs. 4. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed and the proceedings were instituted before the learned Magistrate at Mazgaon, as aforesaid. 5. It appears that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The respondent no. 2 through its authorized representative has filed affidavit in reply stating that the first informant does not have any grievance as against the present petitioners and that they do not wish to prosecute the criminal case. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has observed as under : “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 mater 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.” 3 7. In the present case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties was purely of a personal nature and no element of public is involved in the present dispute. Since the parties have already settled their dispute no purpose will be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 8. In that view of the matter, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 9. However, it is to be noted that for settling the private dispute between the parties, the police machinery was set in motion and police was required to investigate the matter and file a charge sheet. In that view of the matter while allowing the petition, the parties are directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- each. The costs to be paid to the Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police. The petitioners so also respondent no. 2 shall hand over the draft in favour of the Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each with the Office of the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay, which office in turn shall forward the same to the Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)