1 ndm 1-appln.675.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 675 OF 2010 Mrs. Neeta Kumar. ... APPLICANT Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. Dinesh D. Tiwari and Associates for Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. Mr. Amit Desai with Mr. Prakash Naik for Complainant. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 01 st April, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day. 3 The Applicant had initially prayed for quashing and setting aside the direction dated 21 st January, 2010 issued by Respondent No.2 thereby the accounts jointly operated by the Applicant and her husband were frozen. However, subsequently, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the Applicant has amended the Application 2 and sought a relief of quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated vide Crime No. I 20 of 2010 of Rabale Police Station. The husband of the Applicant was in employment of Respondent No.3. According to Respondent No.3, an amount about of rupees 10 core and 20 lacs was misappropriated by the husband of the Applicant. Accordingly, a complaint came to be made to Rabale Police Station, new Bombay. The husband of the Applicant has already been taken in custody. 4 During the pendency of the present proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the Applicant’s husband and the Respondent No.3. It has been agreed that the Applicant’s husband would make a payment of Rs.10,50,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the dues of Respondent No.3. It is however, submitted that since the accounts are frozen and the amount has been invested by the Applicant’s husband in the mutual fund, unless the accounts are defrozen and permission is granted to redeem the mutual funds, the payment so agreed cannot be made to Respondent No.3. 5 From the nature of allegation, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is purely of personal nature and no element of public nature is involved in the matter. 6 The Apex Court in the Case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. 3 State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has observed as under : “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 mater 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.” 7 The Applicant has filed an undertaking before this Court to the effect that upon defreezing the bank accounts with the Standard Chartered Bank and the Citi Bank, she will make the payment of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- to the Respondent No.3. The Applicant is personally present in the Court and she undertakes to make payment of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- on or before 08 th April, 2010. The undertaking is accepted. The written undertaking is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. 8 In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in the following terms. The direction issued by Respondent No.2 insofar as freezing of account No.5571528004 (Citi Bank) and account No. 22510961564 (Standard Chartered Bank) is quashed and set aside. The proceedings initiated vide Crime No. I 20 of 2010 are quashed and set 4 aside. The accused i.e. husband of the Applicant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 9 It is however, made clear that the proceedings quashed are subject to the condition of the payment being realized by the Respondent No.3. Needless to state that in the event, the payment is not made by 08 th April, 2010, the present Application shall stand dismissed and the accused, who is directed to be set at liberty, would be taken back in custody apart from the Applicant liable to face consequences for breach of undertaking. 10 However, taking into consideration that the Criminal Machinery was set into motion by the parties to settle their commercial dispute, the parties i.e. the Applicant and the Respondent No.3 are directed to pay costs, which are quantified Rs.50,000/- each. The demand drafts of Rs.50,000/- each drawn drawn in the name of Police Welfare Fund be handed over to the office of the learned Public Prosecution by 08 th April, 2010. 11 Parties to act on an authenticated copy. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]