APPLN.3632-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3632 OF 2010 Amit Arvind Sheth & Anr. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. H. S. S. Murthy with Mr. P. Sonawane i/ b Haresh Mehta & Anr., for the Applicants. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Veena Kamble, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and for respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. This application is filed for quashing the criminal complaint, filed by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under S. 406, 420 read with S. 34 of I. P. Code. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties have amicably resolved the dispute. The learned counsel for respondent APPLN.3632-10 - 2 - No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein it is stated by the authorized signatory of respondent No.2 that they have no objection, if the complaint filed, is quashed. The applicant No.1 is a Director of M/s. Orbit Life Science Pvt. Ltd. and applicant No. 2 is an employee of the said Company, which is dealing with the manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products. There was an agreement between respondent No.2 and applicant No.1, by which it was agreed that respondent No.2 will place the orders with the Company M/s. Orbit Life Science Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter the the products will be manufactured by the applicant through another agency and thereafter it is marketed by respondent No.2. One such order was placed by respondent No.2 for manufacturing the product known as “LMX-Forte-15 mg, 375 mg and 625 mg tablets”. After the said products were manufactured by the Company of the Applicants and before delivery could be made, respondent No.2 informed the applicants not to dispatch the consignment, in view of the notification issued by the Drug Control General of India. 3. It is case of the applicants that the Madras High Court had granted stay to the said notification and this fact was not known to respondent No.2 and therefore, on the misunderstanding a dispute arose between the applicants and respondent No.2 and as a result of which a APPLN.3632-10 - 3 - complaint was registered against the applicants herein for the aforesaid offences. 4. It is further submitted that the parties have now resolved the said dispute. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in reply and in paragraph 4, it is stated that they do not wish to pursue the said complaint. Since the parties have resolved the dispute and the dispute between is a personal one, there is no impediment for quashing the complaint, in exercise of powers under S. 482 Cr. P. C. The Apex Court in series of cases like - BS Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [AIR 2008 SC 1968], Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969], has held that this Court can under such circumstances, quash the complaint. Hence, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a). Bail bonds furnished by the applicants/accused shall stand cancelled. [ V. M. KANADE J.]