1 (crim wp 2422of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2422 OF 2010 Rakesh Parasnath Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.P.S. Singh and Mr. B.D. Chaudhary for Petitioner Mr. P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State Ms.Asha Nurpali for Respondent No.2-Original Complainant. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Learned APP for the State and Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the FIR bearing No.409 filed by the Respondent No.2 registered with Amboli Police Station u/s.408 r/w. 120B of the IPC and subsequently transferred to EOW, CID Unit III. 3. It is submitted that the parties have now settled the dispute and the Respondent No.2 has no objection 2 (crim wp 2422of 2010) if the complaint is quashed. The Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit and in the said affidavit he has stated that he has no objection if the complaint filed by him is quashed since the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Respondent No.2 has received an amount of Rs.1,18,453/- by demand draft and, therefore, he has stated in the affidavit that the said complaint may be quashed. 5. The dispute appears to be a person one. The allegation made in the complaint that the Petitioner had taken the amount of commission which was to be due and payable to the complainant. Since it is obvious that the dispute between the parties is a personal one. Hence, there is no reason why the said complaint should not be quashed in view of the catena of judgments of the Apex Court. 6. In my view, the ratio of the judgments in the cases of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana and Anr.[AIR 2008 SC 1968] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3 (crim wp 2422of 2010) 7. Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (V.M. KANADE J.)