1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1886 OF 2009 IN C.R. NO. 77 OF 2009 M/s. Suresh Enterprises & Anr. .. Applicant/ Accused V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ........ Mr. Shirish Gupte i/b. Mr. A. K. Chauhan for the Applicants. Miss. A. T. Jhaveri, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. M. S. Mohite i/b. Mr. C. K. Pendse for Respondent No.2. ........ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2010. P.C. Leave to correct the joint affidavit-cum- undertaking. Correction to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard by consent. 3. By the present application, the Applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated vide C.R. No. 77 of 2009, registered by the Azad Maidan Police Station. 2 4. It appears that there was some business transactions between the Applicants on one hand and the Respondent No.2 on the other hand. Further, it appears that there arose a dispute between the parties on account of non- fulfillment of certain terms and conditions of the transactions between the parties. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5, 8, 9 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act. 5. During the pendency of the proceeding, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have agreed to resolve their disputes in terms of the terms and conditions stipulated in joint affidavit-cum- undertaking which is duly signed by the Applicants, Respondents and their respective counsel. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582, has observed that : 3 “ We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes 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 prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approached to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In the present case, also it can be seen that the dispute between the parties are purely personal in nature. The FIR came to be registered on account of certain breaches in the terms and conditions that were agreed between the parties. No element of public nature is involved in the dispute. 7. In that way of the matter, no purpose will be served in keeping the criminal proceeding pending, except burdening the Criminal Courts, which are already over burdened. 4 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). [ B.R.GAVAI, J ]