[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.4590 OF 2008 Mr.Arun Kumar Patil ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Dinesh Tiwari advocate for applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa A.P.P. for the State Complainant is present in person ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend is granted. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the complainant who is present in person and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of CR No.272(A) of 2007 of Shanti Nagar Police Station, Bhivandi, Dist.Thane. It is under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. The complainant has stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them and he does not wish to continue with the prosecution in the present case. He has pointed out that he himself had preferred Cri.Application No.377 of 2008 before this Court wherein he has stated that as the settlement had taken place between him and [-2-] the accused persons, he had no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. In view of this fact, anticipatory bail came to be granted to the applicant. The complainant has stated that he has also addressed a letter to the Senior Inspector of Shanti Nagar Police Station, Bhivandi wherein he has stated that as the dispute has been amicably sorted out, he did not intend to prosecute the accused and the proceedings against the accused be dropped. 3. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana Jagdish Chanana Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968. AIR 2008 SC 1968. AIR 2008 SC 1968. The said case was under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r.w. 34 of IPC. In the said case also, matter was amicably settled between the parties. The Supreme Court observed therein that "In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be [-3-] a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12.3.2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings." So also useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582. In the said case it is observed that "it is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11.1.2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out". It is further observed that "We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in the dispute where the [-4-] 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 utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 4. In the present case, the dispute is purely a personal one between these two contesting parties. There is absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of allegations made against the accused. Looking to the fact that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the said case. Hence, in the interest of justice, CR No.272(A) of 2007 of Shanti Nagar Police Station Bhivandi, Dist.Thane and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. [-5-] 5. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]