WP.1654-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1654 OF 2010 Arun Savalaram Kashikar & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent *** Mr. A. M. Sarogi, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. None appears on behalf of respondent No.2 though served. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 159 of 2010 registered under the provisions of S. 406, 420 of the I.P .Code, with Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners had given the premises, owned by them, to respondent No.2 WP.1654-10 - 2 - on “leave & licence” basis. The said premises were surrendered by respondent No.2 to the petitioner herein. However, thereafter, he filed a complaint, alleging that the petitioners had taken away the goods which were stored in the said premises. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter the parties have settled the dispute and respondent No.2 had given a letter to the police, stating that he had filed the complaint on account of misunderstanding against the petitioners and that misunderstanding was cleared and the dispute was settled between them. The learned APP was directed to take instructions from the complainant and ascertain the correctness of the submissions. Though the matter was adjourned on number of occasions. the investigating officer of the crime has not given any instructions to the learned APP. In this view of the matter and as the averments made in the petition are not controverted, prima-facie it appears that the petitioners are owners of the premises and the petitioners were handed over possession of the said premises by respondent No.2, and subsequently the complaint was filed. A letter dated 26-5-2010 addressed by respondent No.2 to the Senior P.I., Kandivali Police Station also indicate that the dispute was settled between the parties. 3. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of – WP.1654-10 - 3 - (i) BS Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]; (ii) Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [AIR 2008 SC 1968], since the dispute between the parties is personal one and as respondent No.2 having settled the dispute, there is no impediment for quashing the FIR. The writ petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is accordingly disposed of. [ V. M. KANADE J.]