1 appln.75.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 75 of 2011 Mr. Rakesh Mishra & anr. ....Applicants v/s. Gumanmal S. Bafna & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Rajendra Singh Saleya for the applicants. Mr. Mukesh B. Bhagat for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 7th June, 2011 P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the FIR No. 99/2003 and Case No. 209/PW/2004 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrrate, 19th Court Esplanade, Mumbai against the petitioners i.e. accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 4. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of complaint of the respondent no. 2 herein alleging that he has received a mobile call from 2 appln.75.11.sxw Dubai of one Gopal Shekhawat assuring him to supply of certain watches and spare parts of the watches. It is further alleged that said Gopal Shekhawat in the presence of present applicant had assured the Complainant that he will supply good quality of cloth from Dubai and induce him to hand over certain amount. It is further alleged that the said Gopal Shekhawat had introduced the Complainant to one Rajiv Ranjan and impersonated him as a custom officer. The Complainant, therefore, submitted that the applicant was with a huge amount on a false promise. 5. It is submitted that the said Gopal Shekhawat though was arrested, is released on bail and now is absconding. It is further submitted that said Rajiv Ranjan who is alleged to have impersonated as a Government Officer was not arrested. 6. Insofar as present petitioners are concerned, the only allegation that appears is that they had accompanied the said Gopal Shekhawat. The original complainant-respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that the matter between him and the petitioners is settled and he has no grievance as against the present petitioners. It can thus be seen that the dispute between the present petitioners and the Complainant was basically of a commercial nature. The allegation of impersonation is not against the present petitioner. Rest of the offences are compoundable in nature. I, therefore, find that in the present 3 appln.75.11.sxw case the proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969). 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)