IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2010 Ketan Dayabhai Patel & Anr. ..... ..... ...Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ..... Respondents. Mr.M.K.Kocharekar i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates Adv. for the applicants. Ms.Prabha Badadare, Adv. For respondent No.2. Mr.S.R.Shinde APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter taken up for final hearing by consent. By the present application the applicant prays for quashing of criminal case vide CR No.152/2003- FIR lodged with Daman police station. 2. The complainant is father of the applicant. It appears that there were some business transactions between the applicant on one hand and respondent No.2 on the other hand. On account of certain transactions certain amount which was payable to one of the parties was not paid. With this background criminal case came to be filed for the offences punishable under sections 385, 395, 465, 420, 506-II and 501 of IPC. It further appears that there are counter complaints by the present applicants against original complainant alleging therein that the complaint of original complainant-respondent No.2 was on the basis of forged 1 documents. 3. However it appears that during pendency of these proceedings the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and dispute has been resolved inter se between the parties. With this factual background the present petition has been filed. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in reply and has stated that FIR came to be registered on account of commercial dispute between them which is amicably settled and that respondent No.2 has nothing against the applicant. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held : “that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings since 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 utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” 5. It can thus be seen the dispute in the present case between the parties is personal in nature. No element of public interest is involved in the present case. Parties have amicably settled their dispute. Respondent No.2 has no desire to continue with criminal proceedings. I therefore find that this is a fit case where the Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2 11.3.2010. 3