1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1972 OF 2010 Mr.Vivek Sudhakar Bitla ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Vishal Dehmukh with Mr.Satish Ghorpade for the Applicant. Mr.Sachinde for Respondent No.2. Mrs.M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 9, 2010 P.C. :- 1 This application is filed for quashing the criminal complaint registered by respondent no.2 with the Andheri Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC which is registered vide C.R.No.142/2009. 2 In the complaint, it was alleged that the 2 complainant had kept his laptop on his table and on 2nd April, 2009, he noticed that his laptop was missing and therefore, a criminal complaint was filed. The applicant was arrested on 27th October, 2009 and chargesheet was filed. The parties have now resolved the dispute and respondent no.2 has stated that he does not wish to proceed against the applicant. 3 Respondent no.2 has filed his affidavit in which he has stated that he has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. Respondent no.2 is present in the court. He has reiterated the contents of the affidavit dated 18th March, 2010. Under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., offence of theft is compoundable, however, the value of the property should be less than Rs.2000/-. Since the dispute between the parties is a personal one, in my view, there is no reason why the said criminal proceedings should be allowed to be continued after settlement of dispute between the parties. This Court while 3 exercising its power under Section 482 can in a given case quash the complaint though the said offence cannot be compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 4 The application, therefore, is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (V.M. KANADE, J.)