MP 1 WP946_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 946 OF 2011 Suresh V. Thakkar and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Mr. A. M. Saraogi for Petitioners. Mrs. Tiwari for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of F.I.R. No. 1-64 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 265, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The F.I.R. is registered on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 2 alleging therein that the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioners' firm and that the petitioners had opened an account in the name of proprietorship in his name and had done several transactions, and subsequently, closed the same. The respondent No. 2 had himself filed an application before the learned Trial Court for compounding which was rejected since some of the offences were not compounded. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in this Court stating therein that the matter is amicably settled and he does not want to prosecute the criminal complaint. MP 2 WP946_11 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 is also filed reiterating settlement between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs 25,000/-. Costs to be paid by the petitioners by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (B. R. GAVAI, J)