1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 650 OF 2008 Mrs. Dhun Cawsi Naterwalla & Anr. ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Amol Doijode with Mr. K. Akhter i/b. Vigil Juris for Applicants. Mr. K. V. Saste - APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. Benny Joseph i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 23, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present revision, the applicants challenge the Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 11th November 2008 in criminal revision application no. 1272 of 2007 arising out of the proceedings in CC No. 3909/W/03 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. 2 3. The respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint against the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420. In the said complaint the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process. On 21st June 2007 an application for discharge was preferred before the learned trial court. The same was dismissed. Revision preferred against the same also came to be rejected. 4. It appears that the dispute between the parties pertains to a loan transaction. The civil proceedings were also pending between the parties. The parties have settled the dispute between them vide Minutes of the Order in Suit No. 659 of 2002. Since the present dispute is of a civil nature and the parties have amicably settled their dispute, I find that no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. The parties have placed on record the Minutes of the Order dated 26th March 2010. The same are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 5. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)