1 APPLN 5596/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5596 OF 2010 Atul Natwar Patel .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. .... Respondents. Mr. O.A. Siddiqui i/b Rajendra Rathod for the applicant. Mr. Shavez Mukri for Respondent No.2. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 15th December, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. The complainant has filed this application for quashing the criminal case which was filed by him against Respondent No.2 and which was registered with Byculla Police Station, Mumbai vide FIR No.4 of 2009 dated 04/01/2009. 3. Parties have filed consent terms which are annexed at 2 APPLN 5596/10 Exhibit-C. In the consent terms it is stated that parties have resolved their dispute amicably and, therefore, applicant does not have any grievance against Respondent No.2. The consent terms have been signed by the applicant, respondent No.2 and their respective advocates. Parties are present in court. 4. Since the dispute between the parties is personal one, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab1 and in Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr2 in my view there is no impediment in quashing the said complaint. Since the said complaint is not compoundable, parties have filed this application in this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana3 has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482, can quash the complaint even though the offence is not compoundable if it is satisfied that it is in the interest of both the parties and dispute between the parties is personal one. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the dispute between the parties is purely a personal one and since the applicant and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute, it would be appropriate if the complaint is quashed. 1 AIR 2008 SC 1969 2 AIR 2008 SC 1968 3 AIR 2003 SC 1386 3 APPLN 5596/10 6. Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause 14(a) and disposed off. 7. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to the carried out forthwith. (V.M. KANADE, J.)