1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2010 Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Easter Interiors Pvt Ltd & Anr. ..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. Not on board. Since the parties are amicably settling the matter, the Application was mentioned in the morning for production. Production permitted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard, by consent. 3. By present Application the Applicant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 28th January 2010, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge TADA in Appeal No.399 of 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present Applicant against the order passed by the Learned 2 Metropolitan Magistrate 33rd Court Ballard pier, Mumbai dated 27th May 2009, thereby sentencing the Applicant for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. During the pendency of the present application, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and the consent terms have been placed on record. The same are marked as ‘X’ for identification. The consent terms are duly signed by the parties and their respective Counsels. The parties are also personally present in the court and they reiterate the fact regarding amicable settlement between them. 5. The Supreme Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 has held that if the dispute between the parties is of personal nature no purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending and power under Section 482 should be used to give an end to the criminal litigation. The dispute between the parties is purely of personal nature on account of dishonour of cheque. No element of public nature is involved in the present case. I find that in interest of justice by powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. give an end to the Criminal proceedings. It is a fit case wherein this Court by invoking powers should give an end to the criminal litigation. 3 6. In that view the Appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and Learned Additional Sessions Judge are quashed and set aside. The Accused are acquitted by charges. Bail bond if any, shall stand cancelled. Needless to say, as agreed in the Consent terms the amount deposited will be permitted to be withdrawn by the Complainant. (B.R. GAVAI, J)