SM 1 52.apl.657.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 657 OF 2011 Sugandh Madhukar Raut ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ad another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. A. P. Mundargi i/b Ms. Bhakti Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Pralhad Paranjpe for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 19 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The Petitioners prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. i.e. C. R. No. 159 of 2011, registered with the Virar Police Station. 3. The F.I.R. in question came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 alleging therein that when he alongwith his family members had gone to Pune, and after returned home, he noticed that there was a theft in the house and Rs.3,20,000/- was stolen. 4. In the investigation, it was found that it was the present Applicant, who was a culprit. Unfortunately, the Applicant happens to be a son of the Respondent No. 2. SM 2 52.apl.657.11 5. The Respondent No. 2 has filed Affidavit, stating therein that he has already recover the amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. He further states that he does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings against his son. An offence under Section 380 is compoundable. 6. Since the Applicant was residing with his parents in the house, the provisions under Sections 454 and 457 would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. 7. The Complainant is personally present in the Court. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties and since the main offence itself is compoundable, in my considered view, the offence under Section 454 and Section 457 would not be attracted in the facts of the present case, it is a fit case that criminal proceeding needs to be quashed. 8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)