1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2790 OF 2009 Mr.Basaveshwar Laxman Mali : Applicant V/s. Mr.Sanjay Yeshwant Parab & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Subodh Desai for the applicant. Mr.A.S.Sawant for respondent no.1. Ms M.M.Deshmukh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the applicant is seeking quashing of C.R. No.309/2005 dated 24.9.2005 registered with Dadar Police Station and transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, and registered as C.R.No.95/2005. 3. A complaint came to be filed by the respondent no.1 alleging 2 commission of an offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act) 1978. 4. However, subsequently after filing of the complaint, the respondent no.1 informed the Investigating Officer stating therein that the complaint was filed on account of misunderstanding about the functioning of the applicant-company and that the dispute between the parties stood resolved and an affidavit is filed before this Court on behalf of the respondent no.1 reiterating that the complaint came to be filed on account of certain misunderstanding and that the dispute between the parties stood resolved and further that the applicant does not have any grievance against the applicant-company. 5. The apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has held that when the criminal offence which is purely of personal nature is settled by the parties, this Court should quash proceedings by invoking the provisions of section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as pendency of criminal proceedings will not serve any fruitful purpose and will burden the already burdened criminal Courts. 6. In the present case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties 3 was purely of a personal nature and that has been resolved by the parties amicably. The respondent no.1 complainant is also personally present in the Court and reiterates the fact of amicable settlement between the parties. As such, the pendency of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). B. R. GAVAI, J.