1 Orde in 3590 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3590 OF 2010 Sachin Sunder Shetye ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ----- Mr.A.H.H.Ponda for Applicant Mr.A.Y.Singh for Respondent No.2 Mr.P.S.Hingorani -APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant,Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. This application is filed by the Applicant for quashing a criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 387 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Applicant is a cable operator and the Respondent No.2 is a rival cable operator. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Applicant demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatened the Respondent No.2 with dire consequences if the said 2 Orde in 3590 amount is not paid. Accordingly, the complaint has been registered against the Applicant. It is submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of Respondent No2., in which he has stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the Respondent No.2 does not wish to prosecute the Applicant any further. 6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed this application for quashing on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. 7. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 that the power of this Court to quash a complaint under section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not curtailed by the restrictions imposed by section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, even if non- compoundable, this Court in an appropriate case can quash a complaint. 8. In view of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2, in my view, there is no reason why the said complaint should not be quashed. The Apex Court in 3 Orde in 3590 the cases of Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969 has held that this Court can quash the complaint by consent of parties if the dispute is of a personal nature. In the present case, it is apparent that the dispute is purely a personal one. 9 Therefore, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)