1 307.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 307 OF 2011 Valmik Pundalik Mahajan and others. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Kuldeep S. Patil for the applicants. Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for respondent No.1- State. Pramod G. Kothare for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 9th June 2011. P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. and further proceeding arising out of C.R.No.331/2009 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 3. The F.I.R. came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that the applicants had duped him to sell the MHADA flat on 2 307.11-apl the basis of certain fraudulent documents. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants make a categorical statement that during the investigation by the police authorities all the documents have been found to be genuine documents. 5. Be that as it may, the matter is now settled between the parties. The respondent No.2- complainant is present in the Court and states that the matter has been amicably settled. He has also filed affidavit stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled and there are no differences between him and the applicants. 6. The perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the allegations of the complainant against the applicants are personal in nature. It further appears that the F.I.R. arises out of commercial dispute between the parties. No element of public law is involved in this case. The complainant himself does not want to proceed with the prosecution. In that view of the matter, I find that the application deserves to be allowed. 7. Pendency of the criminal proceeding would serve no other purpose than burdening the already overburdened criminal courts. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab , (2008) 4 SCC 58. 3 307.11-apl 9. However, at the same time, the parties are required to be saddled with costs for unnecessarily using police machinery for settling their personal dispute. 10. The application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs of Rs.25,000/- to paid to the Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police. The applicant shall deposit the demand draft of the said amount with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and produce receipt thereof in the record of the application. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)