spb/- 1 6-8-cl2948-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2948 OF 2010 Mr. Sunil Omprakash Sharma & Ors. ... Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Shounak Mehta for the Applicants. Mr. S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Vinayak Patil for Respondent no.2. ...... CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 06TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. 2 By this application the applicants are seeking quashing of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 against them, by consent. It is submitted that a FIR was registered by the Dindoshi Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 326, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC on 26.09.2008. The respondent no. 2 has filed spb/- 2 6-8-cl2948-10.sxw affidavit in reply in which he has stated that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and therefore, the complaint may be quashed. The respondent no.2 is present in the court and he has re- iterated whatever is stated by him in his affidavit in reply. Since the dispute between the parties is personal one and that they have resolved their dispute amongst themselves, there is no reason why the said complaint should not be quashed by this court in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P.C., particularly, in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (AIR 2008 S.C.1969) and in the case of Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana reported in (AIR 2008 S.C. 1968). 3 The Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the same is accordingly disposed of. [V.M. KANADE, J.]