IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3209 OF 2003. Sohel Ahmed Khan. ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Rohan R. Sonawane, h/f. M.B.Shirsat, for the Applicant. Ms. Rashmi Gagwani, i/b. Ganesh Gole, for the Resondent No.2. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. By consent, taken up for final disposal. By this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973"), a prayer is made for quashing the complaint filed by the second Respondent and the order passed thereon by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the said Code of 1973. Rule was issued by this Court on 26th September 2003 and interim relief was granted staying the operation of the said order. : 2 : 3. According to the Applicant, there was an oral agreement between him and the second Respondent in June 2002 by which the second Respondent agreed to let out a Gala to the Applicant for a period of 5 years. The Applicant had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the second Respondent by way of deposit. The agreements were executed by the second Respondent in favour of the Applicant. As there was a dispute between the Applicant and the second Respondent, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the Petitioner against the second Respondent in the Court of Small Causes. After service of summons of the said suit, the second Respondent filed the complaint in question. The allegation in the complaint is that the Leave and License Agreement and the receipts produced before the Court of Small Causes by the Applicant have been forged and the Applicant has used the forged document in the Court knowing it to be forged. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the second Respondent invited my attention to the consent terms filed in Writ Petition No.721/2005 in this Court. The second Respondent is the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition and the Applicant is the Respondent in the said Petition. A copy of the consent terms : 3 : tendered by the Counsel is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. The said Writ Petition which arose out of the suit filed by the Applicant in the Court of the Small Causes, has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 21st August 2008 in terms of the aforesaid consent terms. Clause 3 of the consent terms records no objection on the part of the second Respondent herein for quashing the complaint filed by him, which is the subject matter of this Application. The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent on instructions states that in view of the said compromise, the second Respondent has no objection if this Application is allowed. 5. Perusal of the complaint and other documents annexed to the Application show that there was essentially a property dispute between the parties which resulted into filing of a complaint. Now, the property dispute has been resolved. The order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the said Code of 1973 has not been acted upon till today as from 7th August 2003, there is an ad-interim stay operating in this Application. 6. In view of overall settlement between the : 4 : parties, a case is made out for quashing the complaint by exercising power under section 482 of the said Code. 7. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). [ A.S.OKA,J.] A.S.OKA,J.] A.S.OKA,J.]