1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2844 OF 2010 Atul Nathalal Patel ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Abad H.H. Ponda for Applicant Mr.Roop M. Vasudeo for Respondent No.2 Mr.S.R. Shinde -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420 465, 467, 468, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 which is now pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali. The Respondent No.2 has filed his affidavit in reply, in which he has stated that the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 have been amicably settled the dispute and the Respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- which was due and payable by the Applicant herein and has further stated that he does not have any objection if the complaint is quashed. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the consent terms were filed by the parties in the Consumer Court. He also pointed out that in the consent terms, the Respondent No.2 had specifically agreed to withdraw the allegations against the present Applicant and also ready to co-operate with the Applicant for the purpose of getting the complaint quashed. Parties have also withdrawn the dispute which they had filed against each other. The case filed in the Consumer Court is also withdrawn. 3 4. The Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court and he reiterates what is stated by him in the affidavit in reply which is filed by him in this Court. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1968. 5. Since the Complainant has no objection for quashing the complaint filed by him and taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra), in my view, there is no impediment in quashing this complaint while exercising the powers vested in this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. The Applicant is a builder and the Respondent No. 2 had booked a flat in the housing scheme announced by the Applicant herein. There was some dispute regarding the possession of the flat which was booked by the Respondent No.2. However, now the parties have 4 resolved their dispute. The dispute essentially is in the nature of personal dispute arising out of commercial transaction and no public policy is involved in the said transaction. Under these circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. I am informed that the Learned Magistrate had issued process and, thereafter, issued a non-bailable warrant. Under these circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (d). 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)