1 wp1406.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2008 M/s. M.S. Realty Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ....Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.M. Pungliya for the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for respondent no.2. Mr. A.S. Shitole-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 12th July, 2011 PC: Not on Board. Upon production taken on Board. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order of issuance of process in RCC No. 129/2003 passed by the learned JMFC, Pune and the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 692/2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune. 4. The Respondent No. 1 who had filed a complaint against the present petitioners as well as respondent no.2 alleging therein that the respondent- complainant had induced the Complainant to enter into an agreement with the promoter and part with considerable amount. It was contended that the accused had done so with an intention of cheating and causing loss to the complainant. The Complainant has also complained that the accused has also committed 2 wp1406.08.sxw certain offences under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963. A civil dispute was also pending between the parties. The matter has now been settled between the parties. The consent terms are also placed on record. 5. The Complainant is personally present in the Court and reiterates about the settlement. It can, thus, be 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. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. 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. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant/petitioner by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matters. (B.R. GAVAI, J)