1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 863 OF 2011 Rajendra Ashok Jasud and Ors. ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dilip Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.K. Bhosale i/by Mr. Sashi Pande for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 30, 2011 P.C. Heard both the learned counsel. On earlier date, respondent no. 2 conductor in M.S.R.T.C. was present. He tendered his affidavit with his photograph. The complainant (Respondent no. 2) informs in his affidavit that the prosecution initiated by him was due to misunderstanding. The members of the locality have intervened and he has resolved the same. He does not further want to prosecute his FIR No. 18 of 2004 which has been culminated into R.C.C. No. 311 of 2004 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. 7th Court, Pune., 2 Reading of the proceedings and FIR I find that the prosecution against the petitioner would not stand as primary evidence in the form of statement and does not support prosecution version. Added to it is the affidavit of the complainant, desires to compound and settle the controversy. In terms of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed. The above referred cases are quashed and set aside. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)