1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2011 (Shrawankumar Ramlal Malu and others .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. A.R. Taywade, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 31ST MARCH, 2011. Heard. By way of present application, the applicants have approached this Court for seeking quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 106/2010 dated 28.08.2010. The parties are personally present before this Court and they admit that they have arrived at settlement. Learned Counsel for the applicants, by placing reliance on compromise deed arrived at between the parties, submits that the applicant No.6 i.e. party No.1 in the compromise deed assured to applicant Nos.1 to 5 i.e. party No.2 in the compromise deed that he will withdraw the First Information Report lodged on 28.08.2010. She further submits that the report dated 28.08.2010 was lodged because of some misunderstanding. She further submits that after lodging of the report, the applicant No.6 received the information that the applicant Nos.1 to 5 are also deceived by some other persons and they are also victims. Learned Counsel for the applicants further invites my attention to the terms of settlement i.e. party No.2 assured the party No.1 that they shall not claim any right, title or interest in respect of agricultural land in future which was the subject matter. It is also assured that the sale deed which was the subject matter is not executed and registered by real owner in favour of party No.2 and as such party No.2 declared that the sale deed deemed to be cancelled. The deed of declaration in view of the compromise deed is also placed on record as Annexure-C and the same is 2 registered. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that this Court in the similar set of circumstances was pleased to grant permission to compound the offences and refers the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Bhaurao Dhone .v. State of Maharashtra and another (reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 669). She further submits that apart from the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, an offence is also registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel further submits that in view of the latest developments i.e. by way of amendment, Section 420 is also made compoundable. She further submits that apart from these facts, the foremost consideration that the parties have arrived at settlement and they wish to continue their relations cordial and as such submits that this is a fit case for indulgence at the hands of this Court. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Bhaurao Dhone .v. State of Maharashtra and another (cited supra), the application is allowed. First Information Report bearing Crime No. 106/2010 dated 28.08.2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Hingna Police Station against applicant Nos.1 to 5 only is quashed and set aside. JUDGE *rrg.