1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1267 OF 2005 Purshottam Laxman Kadlaskar ...Petitioner Versus Dilip Manikchand Jain & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Indrajeet Joshi for the Petitioner Mr. Indrapal Singh i/by M/s. A.L.M.T. Legal for Respondent No. 2 Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE: MARCH 12, 2010 P.C.:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd March, 2005 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No. 387 of 2 2002, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in R.C.C. No. 425 of 2001. 3. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and respondent No.4 and respondents No.2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune. In the said complaint, an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be passed. After investigation, a First Information Report came to be registered, and, consequently, the charge-sheet was also filed. The petitioner filed an application for discharge. The same was rejected. The revision carried thereagainst was also rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 4. It appears that the aforesaid complaint came to be filed, as there was some dispute in a business transaction between the parties. It was stated that the dispute has now been amicably settled. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 - the 3 original complainant - stating therein that the dispute is amicably settled, and that the complainant has no grievance existing against the petitioner and against the other accused in R.C.C. No. 425 of 2001. The present dispute between the parties is purely out of the business transaction between the parties and purely personal in nature. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Madan Mohan Abbot v. Sate of Punjab, reported in 2008(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 524, observed as under:- “...We need to emphasize 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 utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law.” 6. The present dispute is purely personal in nature, and no element of public policy is involved in the dispute. I find that 4 there is no case for interference in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and quash and set aside the proceedings. 7. Consequently, the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No. 387 of 2002 and also the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 425 of 2001 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrtate, First Class, Pune, are quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is made absolute as aforestated, with no order as to costs. B.R. GAVAI, J.