1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.597 OF 2008 1. Mohan Kumar Rayana ..Applicants Age : 48 years R/o.D-17, Jeevan Nagar, 21st Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071 2. Smt.Vijaya Rayana Age : 68 years R/o.D-17, Jeevan Nagar, 21st Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071 V/s. 1. Rajendraprasad Rameshwarlal Jhavar Constituted Attorney of M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries, A Proprietorship Concern of Mr.Jagdishprasad Mahalchand Jhavar Having its office at 201, Oriental House 229-231, Samuel Street, Mumbai – 3 2. The Senior Inspector of Police Pydhoni Police Station, Mumbai 3. The State of Maharashtra Mr.Subodh Desai, Advocate, for the applicants Mr.Paresh Madkaikar, Advocate, for opponent No.1 Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 2 ORAL JUDGMENT . Rule. 2. The learned advocate waives service for the opponent Nos.1 to 3. The learned A.P.P waives service for the State of Maharashtra. 3. The 1st applicant is the Managing Director of M/s.Pharmaceutical Products of India Limited and the 2nd applicant is a non-executive Director of the said Company. 4. Between 14th July, 1997 to 26th September, 1997, M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries sold and supplied certain chemicals to the said Company. The said Company had issued 11 cheques. Out of 11 cheques 9 cheques were dishonoured. The 1st opponent who is the constituted Attorney of M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the applicants. The 1st opponent also lodged a complaint with the police alleging commission of offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the 3 Indian Penal Code against the applicants. Accordingly, F.I.R was registered by the police. 5. It is stated in the application that on 17th January, 2004 there was a settlement executed between the said Company and the proprietor of M/s.Arvind Chemical Industries duly represented by the 1st opponent as the constituted Attorney of the proprietor. As per the settlement, the 1st opponent agreed to withdraw Criminal proceedings against the applicants and their Company. Accordingly, complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was withdrawn by the 1st opponent. The present application is for quashing the proceedings of Criminal case instituted on the basis of F.I.R registered at the instance of the 1st opponent. 6. The 1st opponent has filed an affidavit-in- reply. In the said affidavit-in-reply he has admitted the execution of the memorandum of understanding recording a compromise between the parties. He has stated that in view of settlement 4 he has no objection for quashing the Criminal proceedings. He submitted that F.I.R was lodged due to misunderstanding. 7. Perusal of the complaint filed by the 1st opponent with the police shows that the same arose out of commercial transaction between the Company of the applicants and 1st opponent. The commercial transaction was relating to the sale of goods. Now, there is a complete settlement between the parties which is reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of understanding. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the chances of conviction are very bleak. In view of settlement, no purpose will be served by continuing the Criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for invoking of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings. 9. Hence, I pass the following order. 5 (i) The proceeding of Criminal case No.855/P/2003 pending before the learned Magistrate, Mazgaon, is quashed. (ii) There will be no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)