* 1 * Cri.Appln.26.2011 12.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2011 Ivanychev Sergiy and Others .......Applicants V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Ashok Mundargi i/by. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. A.I. Mookhtiar, Advocate for the respondent no.4. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 12 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of C.R. No. 44 of 2010 registered by Yellow Gate Police Station under Sections 407, 353, 186, 280, 336 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against the applicants herein who are the citizens of Ukraine. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the applicants are the Master, Chief Engineer, Chief Officer and Bosun in respect of the * 2 * Cri.Appln.26.2011 12.1.2011 vessel m.v. Dynamic Striker flying the flag of Bahamas. The vessel is owned by Lenthorp Financial Corporation and managed by Enterprises Shipping and Trading Private Limited as Managers. The vessel has been chartered to Phaethon International Co.S.A., Panama. Phaethon International Co.S.A. had inturn chartered the vessel to respondent no.4 under a voyage charter party dated 7th September, 2010 to import 34000 metric tonnes of metallurgical coke worth of Rs.64 crores from Croatia. When the vessel reached Mumbai port carrying 34572 metric tonnes of metallurgical coal, it was unable to unload the cargo because respondent no.4 had not paid the freight charges to the five banking dates. After waiting at the outer anchorage, Phaethon International directed the applicants to return that carriage. However, during the intervening period respondent no.4 had paid the freight charges. There was also an Admiralty Suit No.49 of 2010 filed by respondent no.4. Pursuant to the orders passed in the suit, the ship was arrested and brought back to the Mumbai Port. It appears that thereafter the parties entered into arbitration and arrived at settlement dated 21st December, 2010. The settlement agreement was filed in the * 3 * Cri.Appln.26.2011 12.1.2011 Admiralty Suit and the suit has since been disposed off. Respondent no.3 who is the complainant and respondent no.4 at whose instance the complaint is filed have filed affidavits in the present matter stating that in view of the settlement arrived at they have no desire to prosecute the complaint against the applicants. Considering the facts of the case, the settlement agreement at Exhibit-D and the affidavits filed by respondents no.3 and 4, it is obvious that the dispute between the parties which is essentially of civil nature is amicably settled and there will be no point in continuing with the complaint filed by respondents no.3 and 4. In these special circumstances, the FIR being C.R. No. 44 of 2010 is required to be quashed to meet the ends of justice. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (d). 3. The learned APP states that in view of quashing of the FIR the police will return all the articles seized including passports of the crew, the log-book of the ship and other shipping documents etc. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]