1 Appln979.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION kj CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.979 OF 2010 Shri S.S.Bapat & Ors. ..Applicants Vs M/s.D.R.S.Transport Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Subodh Desai i/by RMG Law Associates for the applicants. Mr.P.S.Hingorani APP for the respondent/State. Mrs.Smitha Dandige & Vidya Bagul for the respondent no.1. ---- Coram : V.M.KANADE,J Date : 11.10.2010. PC 1 This application is filed by the applicants for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 422 read with 34 of IPC. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 Appln979.10.sxw applicants that parties have arrived at a settlement and filed minutes of order which are duly signed by the Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants and the respondents. The same are taken on record and marked “X’ for the purpose of identification. He also filed Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.10.2010. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 also submitted that respondents have no objection if the complaint is quashed. Respondent no.1 is a transport undertaking and they have undertaken to transport the house-hold goods of the applicants who are officers of the Indian Oil Corporation. There was a dispute regarding non-payment of an amount of Rs.58,000/- and therefore, respondent no.1 filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. A perusal of the complaint clearly disclosed that it is a personal dispute between the parties and the parties have now settled the dispute amongst themselves. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 and in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. Vs. State of 3 Appln979.10.sxw Haryana & Anr reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968, in my view, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 has to be quashed in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments. The application is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause-(b) and the application accordingly disposed of. (V.M.KANADE,J)