vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.25 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.25 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.25 OF 2007 a/w WRIT PETITION NO.2637 OF 2006 Deepak Khaitan ... Petitioner Vs. Gustad Pestonji Engineer & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Shirish Gupte with Mr.M.K. Kocharekar for Petitioner Mr.T.R. Moshi for Respondent No.1 Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 3, 2008 APRIL 3, 2008 APRIL 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Writ Petition No.25 of 2007 has been filed by accused No.10 and Writ petition No.2637 of 2006 has been filed by accused No.9. Accused Nos.9 and 10 are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of accused No.8 company. The complainant was employed with accused No.8 company. His provident fund dues were not paid after he retired from service. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the additional Metropolitan Magistrate being C.C. No.66/S/W/2006. Process was issued on 25.7.2006 to the petitioners. Aggrieved by this order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the process issued against them. 2. The parties have settled their dispute after : 2 : mutual discussions. Consent terms have been filed and taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The provident fund dues have been paid to the complainant and he therefore, has no grievance now against the petitioners. The petitioners have therefore prayed that the issuance of process and the proceedings in complaint No.66/S/W/2006 be quashed against them. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (Appeal(Civil) No.555 of (Appeal(Civil) No.555 of (Appeal(Civil) No.555 of 2008) 2008) 2008) has observed thus: 5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize 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 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. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of : 3 : the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed. 4. Similar circumstances arise in these petitions as the parties have amicably settled their differences. The grievance that the complainant had against the petitioners was personal in nature and no meaningful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners when the complainant has already been paid his provident fund dues. 5. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, the process issued against accused Nos.9 and 10 is quashed and set aside. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.