1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.572 OF 2009 Chandrasekar Rao ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant Mr. P. D. Desai Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mrs. R. V. Newton APP CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED:- 4th March, 2010. P.C. 1. The Applicant challenges the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 27th Court, Mulund in CC 374/S/2002 dated 28th August 2006 thereby convicting the Accused for offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the order dated 9th September 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in Appeal No.806 of 2006, thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Applicant. 2. The proceedings were initiated by the Respondent Company basically on 2 the ground that the Applicant had continued to occupy the premises which were given to him as an employee of the Respondent Company. The Learned Trial Court has convicted the Applicant and directed to vacate the premises of the flat within a period of two months, in default to suffer RI for two years. The Applicant has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. 3. The Applicant has filed an undertaking before this Court stating that he shall vacate the disputed premises on or before 31st May 2010 and till then he shall not create any third party interest or part with possession with the third party. The said undertaking is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent company fairly consider that the Respondent Company is not interested in conviction of the Applicant and would have no grievance on the Applicant handing over vacant possession of the premises to the Company. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is not interested in contesting the Revision on merits. 5. I find that since the present dispute was on account of not vacating the premises belonging to the Respondent Company and now since the Applicant has undertaken to vacate the premises and since the Respondent Company itself 3 has no grievance against the Petitioner, no purpose will be served in keeping the criminal case proceedings pending. The Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Pupnjab reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 has held that when the dispute between the parties amicably settled, the Court by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should give an end to the Criminal proceedings. It is a fit case wherein this Court by invoking powers should give an end to the litigation. 6. Rule is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). However, it is made clear that in case the Petitioner does not vacate the premises on or prior to 31st May 2010 and hand over peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the Respondent Company the present Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. In addition to that the applicant would be liable to be prosecuted for committing contempt of this Court. (B.R. GAVAI, J)