[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPL.NO.4480 OF 2008 Vikaskumar Jyotiram Oza ..Applicant Vs. The State of Mah. and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Rajiv Patil Senior Advocate along with Mr.V.V.Purwant Adv. for Applicant Mr.S.C.Nyaynirgune Adv. for Respondent no.2 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned senior advocate for the applicant-original accused, the learned advocate for respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of CR No.161 of 2008 of Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471,472, 420 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. Advocates for both sides state that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and pursuant to the settlement, the applicant will hand over cash of Rs.10,20,354/- to the complainant. [-2-] The said amount will be given by 29.12.2008. In addition thereto, one post dated cheque for the balance amount of Rs.16,57,000/- will be handed over i.e. post dated cheque dated 30.1.2009 drawn on Mumbai District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Deonar Branch, Mumbai, will be handed over. 4. Reliance is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, State of Haryana and another, State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2008 AIR 2008 AIR 2008 SC 1968. SC 1968. SC 1968. The said case was under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r.w. 34 of IPC. In the said case also, matter was amicably settled between the parties. The Supreme Court observed therein that "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 12.3.2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings." Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of [-3-] Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582. In the said case it is observed that "it is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11.1.2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out". It is further observed that "We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in the dispute 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 [-4-] 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." 5. In the present case, the dispute is purely a personal one between these two contesting parties. There is absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of allegations made against the accused. Looking to the fact that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the said case. Hence, in the interest of justice, CR No.161 of 2008 of Azad Maidan Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 6. It is made clear that if there is any default on the part of the applicant in paying the said amount to the complainant, it would be open to the complainant to get this order set aside and the FIR and the proceedings in respect of the applicant to [-5-] stand revived. 7. In view of the fact that FIR and proceedings relating thereto are quashed, Saving Bank Account No.185 of the applicant with Mumbai District Central Co-Operative Bank is defrozen and the applicant is allowed to operate the same. 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]