IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2010 Ashok Kumar Tarachand Shah & Ors. . ..... ...Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ...... Respondents. Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.P.P.Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr.Murtaza Najmi, Adv. For respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. Leave to amend granted. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No.49/PW/2008 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. 2. The complaint was filed by respondent No. -- against the petitioners for offence punishable under sections 403, 409, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with section 34 of IPC. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant was holding 1,65,000 shares in company of accused no.1. It was contention of the petitioner that respondent-company without the application made by the petitioner dematerialised the said shares and as such an offence was committed. 3. During pendency of the present petition parties have amicably settled the dispute. The consent terms have been filed by 1 the parties which are duly signed by the complainant and the accused and their respective advocates. Same are taken on record and marked `X’ for identification. It has been stated in the consent terms that the parties agree to settle the dispute and withdraw cases against each other. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held : “that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” 5. In the present case it can clearly be seen that dispute between the parties is purely of personal in nature. No element of public interest is involved in the present case. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The complainant is also present in the Court and reiterates the fact regarding amicable settlement arrived at. 6. While allowing the petition note has been taken that on account of dispute between the parties the Police Commissioner was unnecessarily set in motion. Therefore while allowing the petition both the parties are directed to pay costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each to be paid to police welfare fund. The petitioner so also the respondent No.2 would hand over demand drafts of Rs. 10,000/- each in the name of Police Welfare Fund to the office of 2 the learned Public Prosecutor within a period of two weeks from today. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. 11.3.2010. 3