1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1792 OF 2009 Mr. Ramesh Vaze & Ors. ..Applicants versus Smt. Sudha Kelkar & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole for Applicants. Mr. Amol P. Patankar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. P. S. Hingorani - APP for Respondent No. 2 - State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2105 OF 2009 Govind Damodar Kelkar & Ors. ..Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Amol Patankar for Applicants. Mr. P. S. Hingorani - APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. Ganesh Gole for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. : 1. Criminal Application No. 1792 of 2009 is for quashing Criminal Case No. 129/Misc/2008 pending before the Learned Incharge 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai arising out of MECR No. 06 of 2009 2 registered by the L. T. Marge Police Station. 2. Leave to amend in Criminal Application No. 2105 of 2009 to implead the original complainant as party respondent No. 2. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mr. Gole waives notice for the said respondent. 3. Criminal Application No. 2105 of 2009 is for quashing Criminal Case No. 128/MISC/2008 arising out of MECR No. 1 of 2009 registered by the L. T. Marg Police Station. 4. The aforesaid two are cross complaints filed by the parties against each other. 5. Basically, it appears that the dispute between the parties arose out of certain matters pertaining to various companies. It further appears that the matters have been amicably settled between the parties and as per the consent terms filed before the learned Facilitator Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India). In Criminal Application No. 1792 of 2009 an affidavit has been filed by complainant - respondent No. 1 reiterating therein that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that the respondent No. 1 has no objection for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings. 3 6. In Criminal Application No. 2105 of 2009, the respondent No. 2 – complainant has filed an affidavit stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled and that he has no objection for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings. 7. Since the disputes between the parties are purely of a personal nature and no element of public nature is involved in the matters, and, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582], wherein it is observed as under : “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the mater 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 utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” I do not find that any purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 8. In that view of the matter, proceedings in Criminal Case No. 129/Misc/2008 pending before the Learned Incharge 8th Metropolitan 4 Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai arising out of MECR No. 06 of 2009 registered by the L. T. Marg Police Station, and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 128/MISC/2008 arising out of MECR No. 1 of 2009 registered by the L. T. Marg Police Station, are quashed and set aside. 9. Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. 10. Certified copy expedited. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)