1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.699 OF 2008 M/s.Nikhil Diamonds and others ...Petitioners vs. State Bank of India and anr. ...Respondents Mr.Anniruddha Joshi i/b Ms Bharati Lele for the petitioners Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P for State Mr.Bhave i/b M/s.Bhave & Co. for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 3, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. The learned counsel for the first and third respondents waives service. The learned A.P.P. Waives service for the second respondent. Considering the controversy involved, petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The first respondent State Bank of India is lead bank of a consortium of banks which granted certain credit facilities to the first petitioner. A complaint was filed by the first respondent against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. An Order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 was passed on the complaint. Accordingly, first information report was registered. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The third respondent is the company 2 to whom the first respondent bank has assigned the loan account of the first petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the consent terms arrived at between the petitioners and the first and third respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. As per the consent terms, the disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and first and third respondents on the other hand were settled. My attention has been invited to the clause 7 of the consent terms and in particular sub clause 5 thereof. Under the said sub clause it was agreed that the criminal proceedings based on the aforesaid F.I.R shall not be prosecuted in view of the settlement between the parties. 3 Reliance has been placed on the documents issued by the first respondent, the Bank of Baroda, the ABN Amrao Bank which have been annexed to this petition as Exh.F, G and H respectively. The said banks have recorded no objection for quashing the proceedings. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the first and third respondents on instructions state that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the first and the third respondents have no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings. 3 5 Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint and considering that the offence alleged is under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code especially when there is a complete monetary settlement between the parties. Now, no purpose will be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause(a) ii)Bail bonds of the petitioners stand cancelled. iii)All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE