{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.832 OF 2009 Rajkumar s/o Ramkrishna Bharuka Age-54 years, Occ-Social Service & Business R/o Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantrayala, Mumbai 2. Deepak s/o Ramkrishna Bharuka Age-58 years, Occ-Business R/o 819, Rajnagar, Near Railway station, Aurangabad 3. Abhimanyu Pawar, Police Inspector, Police Station, Kannad Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 25th February 2010 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, r/w section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by which the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR at CR No. 108/2009 registered with Kannad police station. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner followed by learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under- The property in dispute was owned by the father of petitioner and respondent No.2. It appears that civil suit for partition and separate possession was filed by respondent No.2 against present petitioner in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad bearing Special Civil Suit No.377/2009. It appears that during the pendency of the said civil suit, there was civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who are real brothers and due to some misunderstanding police complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 and on the basis of the same CR No.108/2009 {3} came to be registered against the present petitioner. In that connection, it appears, the petitioner was arrested and hence compensation is sought by the petitioner vide prayer clause “C”, which at this stage is not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It appears that the special civil suit No.377/2009 came to be compromised and terms of compromise are filed before the civil judge Senior division, Aurangabad and accordingly order has been passed in the civil suit below Exhibit-17. It is agreed between the parties, as per compromise, that respondent No.2 would withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioner bearing CR No. 108/2009, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. Now, respondent No.2, original complainant does not want to prosecute CR No.108/2009 further and a statement is made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 which is recorded in criminal application No.553/2010. It is stated by respondent No.2 that the said complaint was filed due to misunderstanding. If the complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the complaint against the petitioner, then there is no propriety in keeping the same pending. In the premise, offence registered at CR No. 108/2009 with Kannad police station requires to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition partly succeeds. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and rejected as {4} withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate action before the competent forum, in terms of “C”. Consequently, the FIR at CR No. 108/2009 registered with Kannad Police station is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cwp832-09