1 (Cri.appln.2939/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLIATION NO.2939 OF 2010 Sachin Dyandev Satpute ..... Applicant. V/s Mr. Kudansingh Rawat & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for Respondent No.1. Mrs. P.P. Bhoale, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 8th July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf the applicant the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for quashing the criminal case registered by Respondent No.1 vide C.R. No.0 of 2009 with Shikrapur Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under section 364(A) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was subsequently transferred to Vimantal Police Station for investigation an it has now been registered under C.R. No.193 of 2009. 2 (Cri.appln.2939/10) 3. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 was taken in the vehicle by the applicant and his associates and he was later on released after couple of hours. Applicant is a Secretary of the Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghtana (Union) and the Respondent No.1 is the General Manager of the Company known as Amtek Auto Limited. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit in reply in which he has stated that the matter between the parties has been amicably settled and he has agreed to withdraw the said complaint. 4. In view of the Judgment in Jagdish Chanana & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr.1, in my view, there is no reason why the said complaint should not be quashed in view of settlement between the parties. 5. In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968 3 (Cri.appln.2939/10)