IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Crim. Rev.Appln. No.7777 of 2005 Mr.Ali Akbar Khan ..Applicant vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Shri R.A.Shaikh for applicant Shri R.M.Gadvi, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Shri Ramesh Patil for respondent no.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR J. 6th December,2005 6th December,2005 6th December,2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Shri Gadvi, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 State and Shri Patil for respondent no.2 waive notice. 3. As a short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final hearing by consent. 4. Respondent no.2 registered a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 354, 509 and 506(2) of I.P.C. After investigating into the said complaint, chargesheet has also been filed for the same offences against the petitioner. The parties have now amicably resolved all their differences. Respondent no.2 complainant through his counsel states that she has no intention to proceed against the applicant/accused any more. As the parties have arrived at amicable settlement, the complainant respondent no.2 is unwilling to give evidence against the applicant. If this is the state of affair, in the interest of justice, to bring quietus to the entire controversy, it will be proper to accede to the request of the applicant for quashing of the criminal alction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. Respondent no.2 has no objection to adopt that course for the reasons already mentioned earlier. Hence, application is made absolute interms of prayer clause (a)