bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1717 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1717 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1717 OF 2008 Mr.Nitin Krishnalal Minocha & anr. ... Applicants v/s The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar for the applicants. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.Akshay Wani for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The application has been filed for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. vide C.R.No.31/2008 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.5 i.e. C.R. No.112/2008 registered with M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. 2. A complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 with M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai vide C.R.No.112/2008 which was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.5 vide C.R.No.31/2008. This complaint was filed for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. committed by unknown persons. During 2 the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the applicants who were employees of M/s.Mata Securities (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Company) were involved in the alleged offences. These employees thereafter approached the Directors of the Company and apologised for their conduct and expressed their desire to compensate the Company to the maximum possible extent. Letters in that regard were sent to the Company by the applicants. 3. The parties have now tendered the consent terms signed by the complainant who is the authorized signatory of Mata Security (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the applicants. In compliance of these consent terms, the entire amount has already been paid to the complainant. 4. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the aforesaid F.I.R. and complaints be quashed and set aside. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the Police Inspector attached to the Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.5 who has stated that investigation in respect of the said complaints are pending and although the people have been arrested, there are still some persons who have remained to be arrested. It is, therefore, submitted that the application for quashing the complaints should not be 3 allowed. 6. In my view, since the complaint is in the nature of a personal dispute between the applicants and the respondent No.2, where the respondent No.2 has alleged that the accused have committed offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the I.P.C., it would be futile to continue with the investigation of these complaints. This is because the entire amount payable to the complainant has been paid by the applicants and, therefore, nothing would really survive for the police to investigate. Apart from this, if the matter goes to trial, there would be a remote possibility of getting a conviction of the applicants since in all probability there would be no witness to depose against them the dispute having been settled between the complainant and the respondent No.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Madan Madan Mohan Abbot v/s State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal Mohan Abbot v/s State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal Mohan Abbot v/s State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.555 No.555 No.555 of 2008) decided on 26.3.2008 of 2008) decided on 26.3.2008 of 2008) decided on 26.3.2008, has observed that where the offences complained of between the parties are personal in nature and the likelihood of the trial ending in a conviction is negligible, it would be in the interest of justice to quash such proceedings. 6. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.