1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.560 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.560 OF 2010 Deepak Murlidhar Hake Applicant versus The Pandharpur Urban Co.op. Bank Respondent Ltd. Mr.Ajay a. Joshi for applicant. Mr.A.M.Shete for respondent no.1. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 13th December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. By way of present revision application the applicant prays for quashing and setting the judgment and order dated 7th September 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006. 3. The respondent no.1 is the complainant in STC No.2762 of 2004 filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the present applicant. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 17th March 2005 convicted the applicant for the offence under section 138 of the Act and directed to pay Rs.13.60 lakhs as compensation to 2 respondent-complainant, and in default in making payment, the applicant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The applicant's Appeal No.24 of 2006 came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 7th September 2009. The applicant has impugned the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in this revision. 4. Subsequent to the impugned order, the dispute between the applicant and respondent bank is amicably settled. The applicant deposited with the respondent bank a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs on 30th June 2011. The said amount was accepted by the respondent bank as full and final settlement of the loan amount. The respondent bank has also given certificate to that effect that the applicant has repaid the entire loan amount and they have no claim against the applicant of whatsoever nature. The certificate is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 bank states that in view of repayment of the entire loan amount by the applicant, the bank has no objection for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 6. It can thus been seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4- SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 7. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006 dated 7th September 2009 as well as the 3 order of Magistrate dated 17th March 2005 convicting the applicant for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are quashed and set aside 8. In view of disposal criminal revision application itself, Criminal Application No.113 of 2010 does not survive and same stands disposed of as such. (RANJIT MORE, J.)