1 1791.10-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1791 OF 2010 Kiritkumar Chimanlal Salot and another. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dharam i/b. M/s.Dharam & Co. for the petitioners. A.S.Shitole, APP for respondent No.1- State. G.V.Bhagirat i/b. M/s.Divekar & Co. for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 14th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The facts of the present petition are identical with the facts of Criminal Writ Petition Nos.2801/2009 and 2825/2009 decided by this on 5th March 2010. 3. The only difference in the said petitions and the present petition is that in the said petitions the respondent- Bank had given no-objection for quashing criminal proceedings while in the present petition, the Bank, though, has stated that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners still they do not want to withdraw criminal proceedings or 2 1791.10-wp criminal complaint made by the Bank. The fact remains that the proceedings initiated by the respondent- Bank were basically for the recovery of the loan amount from the petitioners. The Bank does not dispute that the said amount has been fully received and its dues have been settled. In that view of the matter, I find that the present petition also needs to be allowed in view of the view taken by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.2801/2009 and 2825/2009 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v.. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. No purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. 4. However, the parties need to be saddled with costs for setting the police machinery in motion to settle their personal dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners graciously state that the petitioners themselves would pay the amount of costs and do not want to burden the Bank. 5. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of costs quantified in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Costs to be paid by the petitioner by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)