IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2008 Southern Chemical and Allied Agencies & Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s M/s.National Peroxide Ltd. & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr.Niteen Pradhan i/by Ms.Shubhada Khot, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.Hormos C. Daruwala, Adv. For the respondent No.1. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26/2/08 PC: By this petition the petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.1470/SW/05 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai filed by respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner No.1 is partnership firm of which petitioner Nos.2 to 6 who are women are its partners whereas petitioner No.7 is the Manager. All the partners who are carrying on business in the name of petitioner No.1 are residents of Chennai and are being prosecuted in a Court at Mumbai. Respondent No.1 in the course of business used to supply goods to the petitioner No.1 as an agent who in turn used to supply the same to the customers. Petitioner No.1 under the contract was obliged to make recovery of the value of the goods from the customers and remit the same to respondent 1 No1-complainant. Petitioner No.1 was to get commission on the amount of the value of goods sold and the amount recovered. While the contract was being operated a dispute cropped up between petitioners and respondent No.1 in regard to alleged recovery to be made by respondent No.1 from the petitioners. Respondent No.1 thus filed a private complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court under section 409 read with section 34 of IPC against present petitioners. During pendency of the said proceedings the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and consent terms are filed on record which go to indicate that the petitioners have paid the amount due and recoverable by respondent No.1 vide demand draft No.477625 dated 28.12.07 drawn on UCO bank. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has joined in the request made by counsel for the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings by contending that the dispute has been settled out of Court and no useful purpose would now be served by continuing the prosecution which is most unlikely to result in a conviction. Consent terms are taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has led emphasis on the fact that petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and all its partners viz. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are women who are permanent residents of Chennai and if the proceedings are not quashed they would be harassed and put to inconvenience for attending the case at Mumbai. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi & Ors., v/s State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 2 (4) SCC 675. Perusal of the said judgment reveals that the power of the High Court under section 482 or under Article 227 is in no way controlled by section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of quashing of proceedings. Perusal of the said judgment also reveals that power of the High Court under section 482 can be exercised to secure ends of justice and whether to use the said jurisdiction or not would depend upon fact situation in each case. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that it would not be expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue when no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the same to continue. Hence I am inclined to exercise powers under section 482 and article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the proceedings. It will not be out of place to mention that Deputy Manager of the Respondent-company is present in the Court and confirms having received the demand draft towards full and final settlement of all the claims of respondent No.1 against the present petitioners. He categorically states that respondent No.1 is not at all interested in continuing with the prosecution of the present petitioners and states that it would be in fitness of things to quash the proceedings. In the result and in the facts and circumstances of the present case I allow the writ petition and quash the criminal proceedings in CC No.1470/SW/05 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai against the petitioners initiated by respondent No.1. Rule made absolute in above terms. 3