1 wp 1779.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1779/2010 Kantaben Kanubhai Patel & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Ms.Pallavi Ashar i/b Mr.Bipin Joshi for petitioners Mr.S.A.Shaikh,APP for respondent State CORAM- MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE -9th DECEMBER,2010. P.C. . Heard. 2 By this Petition the petitioners are praying for quashing of the FIR No.50/2006 in Criminal Case no. 209/PW/2006 wherein the accused are facing the charges for the offences punishable under sections 324,448,452,504,114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The record discloses that the incident of arrest has taken place due to the family dispute. The original complainant/respondent no.2 is sister in law of petitioner no.2 and the dispute between them is related to a residential premises of MHADA . The Civil litigation is 2 wp 1779.10 going on between the parties in the City Civil Court,Mumbai. The record further discloses that the parties have in fact appeared before the Lok Adalat on 12/4/2010 to settle the matter ,however, it could not be settled since section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. The same fact is mentioned in the order passed by this Court on 28/7/2010 . Today though respondent no.2 is served, she is not present before the Court. The report of the notice shows that respondent no.2 is out of station . 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the parties in fact are inclined to settle the matter as the family dispute regarding the premises no more exists. 5 Considering the facts of the case and the legal position, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the matter before the 34th M.M.Court, Mumbai is expedited then she wants to withdraw this Petition. 6 In view of these submissions and the set of facts the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34 Court , Mumbai to expedite 3 wp 1779.10 Criminal Case No. 209/PW/2006 and dispose it of on or before 30th April, 2011. 7 The petitioners to appear before the said Court on 27th January, 2011 . 8 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 is bed ridden . 9 About exemption the petitioner/accused to take orders from the concerned Court . 10 In view of what is stated above ,learned counsel for the petitioners is allowed to withdraw the petition. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.