IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1615 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1615 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1615 OF 2008. Mr.Dhiren Purshottam Khoda @ Thakkar & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus Mr.Ajay Shyamsunder Lakhotia & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. H.H. Ponda, for the Petitioners. Mr. Nikhil S. Davare, i/b. M/s. Udwadia & Udeshi, for the Respondent No.1. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 8TH AUGUST,2008. : 8TH AUGUST,2008. : 8TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Rule. The Advocate for the first Respondent waives service. The learned APP waives service for the second Respondent. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The prayer in this Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the proceedings based on First Information Report filed by the first Respondent alleging the commission of offences under sections 420, 406, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that in the civil suit pending between the Applicant and the - 2 - Company of the first Respondent, the parties arrived at the settlement and accordingly consent terms were filed in this Court. It is pointed out that all the subsisting disputes were settled by filing consent terms. Under the consent terms, the Company which is being represented by the first Respondent agreed to not to prosecute the complaint. The prayer for quashing the proceeding is based on the said compromise. The learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent was submitting to the orders of this Court in view of the compromise. In fact, he pointed out that a letter was issued by the first Respondent to the Economic Offences Wing informing the Investigating Agency of the settlement between the parties. 3. In view of the settlement between the parties, the continuation of the proceedings will not serve any purpose. A dispute relating to the business transaction lead to the lodging of the First Information Report. Now, there is a complete settlement between the parties. Hence, a case is made out for exercising the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of - 3 - prayer clause (a). It is clarified that the F.I.R.No.33/2008 which was originally filed with the Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.III, Crime Branch, Mumbai was later on transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Unit No.II, Crime Branch-II, Mumbai, was renumbered as F.I.R.No.32/2008. There will be no orders as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]