SM 1 41.apo.682.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 682 OF 2011 Prashant Ramchandra Satkar and others ....Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Meghashyam Kocharekar for the Applicants. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri, APP for the Respondent NO.1-State. Mr. Rahul R. Singh for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule mare returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present application, the applicants are praying for quashing of the C.C. NO. 764/PW/2005 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai arising out of C. R. No. 132 of 2004. 3. The criminal proceedings were initiated on the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that the present applicants, who were his employees, had stolen certain cheques. 4. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit-in-reply stating therein that he does not want to proceed with the criminal complaint. SM 2 41.apo.682.11 5, In veiw of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (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 interest of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute, however, this shall be subject to costs quantified to Rs.10,000/-. The costs to be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent/Accused will be at liberty to withdraw the same. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)