WP.3443-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3443 OF 2010 Mr. Deepak s/o. Jaipal Agarwal ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. A. M. Sarogi, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Avesh Kayser, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2010 P.C. 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2. This is an application for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of 37th Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. The authorized representative of respondent No.2 present in the Court, states that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed qua the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 identifies the authorized representative of respondent No.2. The WP.3443-10 - 2 - complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under S. 78, 79 of Trade and Mercantile Act, 1958 and under S. 420, 487, 488 read with S. 34 & 120-B of the I. P. Code. 3. The application for permission to compound the said offences was made to the trial Court. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that some of the offences are non-compoundable and he has no jurisdiction or authority to the allow the compounding of those offences. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BS Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], the power can be exercised by this Court under S. 482 Cr. P. C. and it is not restricted or limited by virtue of provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Apart from that, the dispute between the parties is personal one. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969], in my view, this is a fit case for allowing the application by consent of the parties. The criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is accordingly disposed of. It is clarified that the criminal complaint is quashed qua the petitioner only. [ V. M. KANADE J.]