1 ndm 18 appln.1466.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1466 OF 2010 Phiroz Ibrahim Khan. ... APPLICANT Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. K.S. Patil i/b Ranjeet H. Patil for Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. Mr. P.H. Padve for Respondent No.2. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 29 th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 By way of present Application, the Applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR registered vide C.R. No.298 of 2009 registered with Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The FIR came to be registered by Kandivali Police Station, 2 Mumbai at the behest of the Respondent No.2 alleging therein that the present Applicant and some others have cheated the Complainant in the transaction regarding one tenement at Kandivali being constructed by MHADA. 4 It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The Respondent – Complainant has filed an affidavit stating therein that the allegations in the FIR against the present applicant were incorrectly made by him at the behest of one Mr. Abu Valsankar and that the allegations are incorrect. He further stated that the Complainant has no grievance subsisting as against the present Applicant. 5 The Apex Court in the Case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has 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.” 3 6 In the present case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties was purely of a personal nature and that has been resolved by the parties amicably. The Respondent - Complainant is also personally present in the Court and reiterates the fact of amicable settlement between the parties. As such, the pendency of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application. 7 Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]