:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2007 Vishal Bahadur Sahi ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of EOW Unit III Mumbai.) & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole for petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for respondent no.1-State. Mr. K.K. Jadhav for respondent no.2-original complainant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. Dated: Dated: Dated: June 17, 2008. June 17, 2008. June 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gole the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Leave to amend so as to implead the original complainant Shri Akhilesh P. Singh, Partner of Kumar Petroleum through his Power of Attorney holder Shri Kailaskumar Ganesh Prasad Singh. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Respondents waive service. :2: 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the petition, there was a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant for payment of monetary loss and Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 31/5/2008. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the said settlement nothing further remains for the police to investigate into and prosecute the petitioner in C.R. No. 58 of 2006 which is sought to be quashed and set aside in this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 agrees that the settlement between the parties has been arrived and the dispute, which is a subject matter of C.R. No. 58 of 2006 does not survive any further. Mr.Patil, the learned APP has placed before us the concerned file, which shows that the original complainant has addressed a letter dated 31/5/2008 to the Additional Commissioner of Police, EOW Unit - III, GB, CB, CID, Mumbai Crowfard Market, Mumbai and the said letter has been received on 2/6/2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. As per the said letter the complainant has withdrawn his complaint on account of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the petitioner and the :3: complainant on 31/5/2008. Mr. Patil, on instructions from the officer present in the court, states that the respondent no.1 has no objection if C.R. No. 58 of 2006 is quashed by this court. 5. Hence, by consent, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (J.H. (J.H. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) Bhatia, J.) Bhatia, J.) (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)