1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2708 OF 2010 Mr.Balkrishna Vorvady Hegde & Ors. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay D. Nangre for the Applicants. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr.Nilesh S. Das for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 9, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicants and APP for the State and Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 This application is filed for quashing the private complaint by respondent nos.2 and 3 which is now pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, 2 bearing Complaint No.193/SW/2009. The learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order giving direction to the police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer of the concerned police registered a complaint under Sections 465, 467, 471 read with 34 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint was that the applicants who are elected members of the Managing Committee of the OM Chamber Commercial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. had executed a common Indemnity Bond on a non-judicial stamp paper declaring that they would be jointly and severally responsible for all the decisions taken by the Managing Committee. It is submitted that now the parties have settled the dispute and Consent Terms have now been filed in Writ Petition No.955/2010 which is pending in this court. In the Consent Terms in paras 3 and 4, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have agreed and have undertaken to this court to withdraw all allegations, complaints and criminal cases pending in all court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are now 3 represented by Advocate and they have also filed an affidavit in which they have reiterated the averments made in clauses 3 and 4 of the Consent Terms and have stated that they have no objection if the complaint is quashed. The Apex Court in several cases has held that if the parties have resolved the dispute amicably, then the criminal cases which are filed by them against each other can be quashed by this court by exercising inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2008 (AIR 2008 SC 1968) has observed in para 2 as under :- 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Cri.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a 4 compromise deed dated 30th April, 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March, 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings. 3 In my view, the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The only allegation made by the complainant was that though the declaration and Indemnity Bond has to be signed by each member of the Managing Committee separately on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/-, however, it was declared jointly on a single 5 non-judicial stamp paper. The dispute between the parties is a personal one and does not pertain to any defalcation of the funds of the society or regarding any other irregularity in the management of the society. This being the position, there is no impediment for this court to quash the complaint by exercising its inherent power under Section 482. 4 In the result, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The criminal complaint, accordingly, is quashed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)