1 (appln 2775 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2775 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2775 OF 2009 Gallnat Computer P.Ltd. and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. Sudhakar Hiryanna Shetty and Anr. ..Respondents ----- Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global for Applicants Mrs.Y.R. Bhosale – APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. None appears on behalf of the Respondents, though they were served. 2. By this application, which is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Applicant is seeking an order of this Court for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 vide C.C. No. 736/P/2003 2 (appln 2775 of 2009) pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai. 3. It is submitted that the two complaints were filed by the Respondent No.1. The first complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane and second complaint was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai,which is the subject matter of this application. It is submitted that both these matters were settled between the parties and a declaration to that effect was given by the Respondent No.1 which is Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘F’ to the application. The criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was withdrawn by the Respondent No.1. An averment to that effect was made in paragraph 5 of the application. However, the Complainant did not withdraw the complaint, which was pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai. Hence, this application has been filed. 4. Initially, this Court was pleased to pass an order on 27th July, 2009, issued notice to the Respondent. Notice was served. However, the Respondent did not appear. Thereafter on 16th 3 (appln 2775 of 2009) October, 2009, the following order was passed by Brother Shri S.A.Bobde J. “1. None appears inspite of service. 2. Mr.Jha, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that inspite of service of notice on several occasions, the respondents have not appeared even though there has been a settlement of the dispute. Hence ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) until further order.” 5. Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that inspite of service, on several occasions, the Respondent no.1 has not appeared even though there has been settlement of dispute, hence, ad-interim relief may be granted until further orders. 6. Thereafter, again notice was issued by Brother Shri B.R. Gawai J. on 1st April, 2010. The following order was passed. “Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 29th April, 2010. Hamdast 4 (appln 2775 of 2009) granted. In addition to normal Court service of notice, the Applicants would be at liberty to serve the Respondents by private notice.” 7. Thereafter, the office notice state that the Respondent No.1 is duly served and inspite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the Respondents. It is apparent, therefore, that the Respondent No.1 is not keen in pursuing the said complaint. He has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, accepting the averments made by the Applicant in this application and more particularly in view of the documents annexed at Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘F’ at pages 26 and 28 of the application, the application will have to be allowed. 8. Application is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of. 9. The Criminal Application No. 446 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)