1 APL.102-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2011 Suresh Babu ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 717 OF 2011 ---- Mr. Prakash Naik with Mr. Vikas Kumar i/b Mr. Amit P. Ghag,for Applicant. Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. with P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Apoorv V. Singh, for Respondent No.2. Mr. J.E. Bhanushali with Mr. Karan Mehta, for Respondent No.3. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2011. P.C.:- 1 Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the applicant had added Classic Enterprises as respondent no.2. The applicant, by this application filed u/s 482 of Cr. P.C., is seeking a direction from this court for quashing the F.I.R. which is registered vide CR No.302/2010 on 2 APL.102-2011 28.7.2010 with the Sakinaka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465,468,471, 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. 2 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and respondent nos.2 and 3 submit that the parties have now settled the dispute amicably and dispute essentially is personal one and no injury is caused to the public at large. He tenders a Consent Terms which is signed by the applicant and respondent nos.2 and 3. 3. The Consent Terms are marked “X” and are taken on record. Undertakings given in the said Consent Terms are accepted. 4. The Apex Court, in the case of Madanmohan Abbot Vs. State Punjab [AIR (2008) SCC 1969], has held that if the dispute between the parties is personal dispute, this court while exercising its discretion u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. can quash the complaint. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, there is no impediment in quashing of the Criminal Complaint which is filed by respondent no.2 against the applicant and respondent no.3. Accordingly, the Criminal Complaint is quashed. It is clarified that the initial criminal complaint vide 3 APL.102-2011 CR No.302/2010 is also quashed. The applicant has also handed over cheque to respondent no.2 in the Court as per the Consent Terms. All parties are present in the Court today. 5. Criminal Application No.717 of 2011 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the F.I.R. has been quashed at the instance of the parties, the applicant may be directed to pay the compensation to the Government for using the Police machinery for the purpose of recovery of the amounts claimed by them. 7. As far as the submission of the learned A.P.P. as regards payment of compensation by the applicant is concerned, we are not inclined to direct the applicant to pay the compensation to the Government since it is the duty of the Police Officer when a cognizable complaint is registered, to investigate the same. They are under statutory obligation to investigate the complaint. Therefore, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. However, after having gone through the record, we must express our appreciation of the Investigating Officer who 4 APL.102-2011 had taken great pain in investigating the said case, and as a result of his efforts, the parties have finally settled their dispute. Our appreciation may be communicated to the Home Department of the State. 8. In view of the order passed in Criminal Application No.717 of 2011, the applicant does not press Criminal Application No.102 of 2011, and the same is disposed of as not pressed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)