1 APL.76-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2011 Pinky Dinesh Tripathi ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Sharad Singh i/b Mahesh Patil and Rishi Bhuta, for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. Ms. Sanghamitrai/b Devendra Vadani, for Respondent No.3 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The applicant has prayed that the criminal case which is registered at the instance of respondent no.2 with the M.H.B Colony Police Station vide CR No.277 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 403 of I.P.C. be quashed. 2 APL.76-2011 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent No.3 realised that his purse was not traceable and thereafter he made several inquiries at various places, and in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. he had received email on his mobile phone through the bank which informed him that certain amounts were debited from his account. He thereafter lodged an F.I.R. The F.I.R. was against the unknown person. After the F.I.R. was lodged, Police started their investigation and eventually one Rajesh Mahendra Chawda and the applicant were arrested in connection with the said offence. Respondent No.3 has now filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he has no objection if the case as against the applicant is quashed since the matter between respondent no.3 and the applicant has been amicably settled and the amount which was removed from his bank account has been recovered and returned back to him. Respondent No.3 is present in the court. He has reiterated the contents of the facts and the consent terms which are tendered by him in this court. 4. Since the dispute between the parties is personal one and they have amicably settled the dispute, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 3 APL.76-2011 SC 1969] , in our view there is no impediment in the quashing F.I.R. qua the applicant while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. Applicant is also present in the court. 5. In the result, criminal application is allowed. The F.I.R. which is registered as CR No.277 of 2010 and the criminal proceedings against the applicant arising out the said F.I.R. are, therefore, quashed and set aside. 6. However, it is clarified that the criminal proceedings are quashed only as against the present applicant, and not against the other accused no.2. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)