1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2009 Shankar S. Kanse ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.J.S. Kini i/b. Mr.Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr.Shamkant G.Mahamuni i/b. Ms.Shubhangi S. Nikam for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 20, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for respondent no.2. 2 The petitioner is seeking an order and direction from this court for quashing the criminal case which is pending in the court of 29th Metropolitan Magistrate at Dadar arising out of 2 C.R.No.154/94 which was registered by the Bhoiwada Police Station. A complaint was registered by the said police station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. 3 It is submitted that the parties have now settled the dispute. The allegation in the complaint is that the applicant had committed theft by snatching gold chain belonging to respondent no.2 which is valued at Rs.2500/-. In para 4 of the application, it is stated that the parties have settled the dispute out of court. It is submitted that though the said offence is now made compoundable under the amended provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., since this is a old complaint, the said offence was not compoundable at that time and as such, no application has been filed before the Magistrate for compounding the sentence. It is submitted that this Court, however, can quash the complaint under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if it is 3 satisfied that the dispute between the parties is settled. 4 I have perused affidavit of respondent no.2 who has stated that he has no objection to quashing of the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate and he has no objection if the petition is allowed. Taking into consideration the affidavit filed by respondent no.2, in my view, there is no reason why the said complaint should be allowed to proceed. It is an admitted position that offence under Section 379 has now been made compoundable. It is settled position in law that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 has inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and if it is satisfied that the parties have settled the dispute, can pass an order in the best interest of both the parties. The Apex Court in the case of (1) B.S. Joshi and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and another ((2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675), (2) Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 4 ((2008) 9 Supreme Court Ceases 677) and (3) Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab ((2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582), was pleased to quash the FIR after the parties had settled the dispute. Since the allegation in the present case is theft of gold chain which allegedly belonged to respondent no.2 and who now states that he has no grievance if the complaint is quashed, in my view, the quashing of the complaint would not be against public policy. 5 The writ petition, therefore, is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (V.M. KANADE, J.)