SM 1 909.apl.808.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 808 OF 2011 M/s. Microse India Ltd. ...Applicant Versus S. P. Engineers, and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Subodh Desai for the Applicant. Mr. M. S. Karnik for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present application, the applicants are praying for quashing of C.C. No. 179 of 2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrare, First Class, Nashik Road, Nashik. 3. The aforesaid criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 alleging therein that the accused nos. 1 and 2 had fabricated a document showing it to be Agreement of Sale and signed by the Complainant. 4. The matter has been now amicably settled between the parties. There were parallel civil proceedings with respect of the same dispute which had came up to this Court, on which consent terms haver been filed. Shri. Karnik, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, on the basis of instructions of SM 2 909.apl.808.11 the respondent no. 1 who is personally present in the Court, reiterates that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the parties are abiding with the consent terms filed in the civil proceedings before this Court. 5. The dispute appears to be purely out of a commercial transaction between the parties pertaining to sale and purchase of certain property. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Costs to be shared equally by the applicant on one part and the respondent no. 1 on the other part and paid by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Nashik. 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. SM 3 909.apl.808.11 (B. R. GAVAI, J.)