1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2010 Vasudeo Balu Tirlotkar : Applicant V/s. Madhavi Hemant Shroff & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.S.V.Marwadi for the applicant. Ms Neha Palshikar Bhide for respondent no.1. Mr.K.V.Saste, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 18, 2010. P.C.: Leave to correct the cause title. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 3. By way of the present application, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the proceedings being Case No.356/PW/2008 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 40th 2 Court, Mumbai, arising out of Crime No.218/2009 registered by Gamdevi police station. 4. At the instance of the respondent no.1 herein, a F.I.R. came to be registered by Gamdevi police station wherein it was alleged that the present applicant who was working as a Driver of the respondent no.1 was permitted to use a room owned by the respondent no.1. It is further alleged that after his termination, he did not vacate the said room and, as such, proceedings for eviction were initiated against him in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. It is further alleged that the first informant came to know that the applicant had fabricated certain documents in order to show that he was the owner of the said room and had produced the said documents before the BEST for getting the bill changed in his name. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. It is submitted that the applicant has handed over the peaceful possession of the room in question to the respondent no.1. 6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that she has no objection for compounding the offence under 3 section 420 filed against the applicant. 7. The apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has observed thus: “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 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 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.” 8. In the present case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature and no element of public nature is involved in the dispute. The parties have amicably settled the dispute between them, 4 civil and criminal proceedings. I find that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 9. In that view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). B. R. GAVAI, J.