-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2011 Notus Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd and Others. ..Petitioners. Versus Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and Another. ..Respondents. Mr. I. A. Bagaria for the petitioners. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for R-2. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 22, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4164/SS/2011 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai. The said complaint is filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After recording of verification, the process is issued. srp -: 2 :- 3. In the meanwhile the parties settled their dispute amicably and have arrived at consent terms. Learned counsel for the respective parties tendered consent terms signed by petitioner no.2, the Managing Director of petitioner no.1 – Company, on his own behalf and on behalf of rest of the petitioners. The authority letter to that effect is annexed to consent terms. Respondent no.1 has signed consent terms as authorised signatory in view of the Authority annexed to consent terms. The consent terms are also signed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Petitioner no.2 and the authorised signatory of respondent no.1 are present in the Court. On query, they stated that they have gone through contents of the consent terms and understand the implications thereof. Consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In paragraph no.4 of consent terms, parties have agreed that writ petition be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. In the light of above circumstances, it is clear that parties have settled their dispute amicably. 5. A perusal of complaint would reveal that the allegations made therein are personal in nature and there is no element of public law involved in the crime. In view of the law laid down -: 3 :- by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid criminal proceeding pending except burdening the Criminal Courts, which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the aforesaid criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. 6. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (RANJIT MORE, J.)