1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1867 OF 2010 Rajendrakumar Motilal Daga ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.I.S. Thakur i/b. Global Juris Consults for Applicant Mr. R.V. Newton -APP for State Mr. Amin Solkar for Respondent No.2 ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. The Applicant has filed this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing a criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 dated 31.5.2009 vide C.R. No. 162 of 2009 for the offence punishable uner section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In the complaint it is alleged that the accused has refused to repay an amount of Rs.10 lacs paid to him. The said amount was paid after representation was made that a plot situated at Mira Road, would be sold to the Complainant at a concessional rate. 1 However, thereafter, since the Applicant did not fulfill his promise, he realised that the Applicant has cheated him and, therefore, the present complaint has been filed. 3. Shri Solkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 has submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. He has filed the consent terms which are taken on record and marked  X for the purpose of identification. The Applicant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs by pay orders drawn on ICICI Bank. These pay orders are tendered in the Court to the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 has also agreed and confirmed that the MOU between the parties is cancelled. 4. Undertaking given by the Respondent No.2 in the Consent Terms is accepted. Consent Terms are signed by the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 and their respective advocates. Since the parties have settled the dispute, the complaint which is filed by the Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. It has been held by the Apex Court in several cases that this Court has power to quash the complaint under its inherent powers for preventing abuse of the process 1 of law if the Complainant has no objection and dispute between the parties is settled. The Apex Court has held that the power of the High Court is not curtailed by section 320 of Cr.P.C. when it exercises its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the said offence is compoundable offence after leave of the Court under the provisions of section 320(2) is taken. Sub- section (3) of the said section also lays down that whenever the offence under section 320 is compoundable, the abetment of such offence also compoundable in the like manner. 5. Application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (V.M. KANADE J.)