1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No. 821 of 2008 (Rajesh Rameshlal Jaiswal V. The State & others) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, APP for t he respondent / State Mr. S.S. Chillarge, Advocate for the respondent No.3 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This petition sought quashing of the FIR dated 14th November, 2008, lodged by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner. In the FIR, the respondent No. 3 alleged that he is owner of certain vehicle which he had purchased through the petitioner’s Agency. After the transaction was completed, he said, he obtained the possession of the vehicle. He then said that on 28th October, 2008, the petitioner came to him and requested him to allow him to take back the vehicle for the purpose of completing formalities of insurance. The respondent No.3 allowed him to take back the vehicle on this pretext. But, thereafter, the petitioner, it is alleged, did not return the vehicle despite of 2 several requests. Lastly, he lodged the complaint. The police registered the offence. 3. The petitioner came up with a story that after the respondent No.3 purchased the vehicle, he agreed to sell it to a third party. He said, even this transaction was routed through his Agency. He pointed out that the respondent No.3 had even delivered duly signed Transfer Forms of the vehicle. On the basis of this defence, this petition was admitted and interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. The complainant has now come before this Court through his Advocate. It is his case that now the dispute is settled between them and he would withdraw his complaint. On perusal of Section 320 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal code is compoundable with the permission of the Court. It appears to me that the settlement between the parties is genuine. 4. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. There shall be order in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ of the petition. DT: 19.04.2010 [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] srm/criwp/821/08 3