1 (Crim Appln 3770 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3770 OF 2009 Raghendra P. Acharya & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b.Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for Applicants Mr.V.R. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Shri A.P. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants 2. By order dated 8th July, 2010, the applicants were allowed to serve the notice to he Respondent No.2 by publication in Lokman and Pudhari Marathi newspaper published in Pune. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2 has been served, which fact has been recorded by this Court on 8.7.2010. 3. In this view of the matter, Criminal Application No. 394 of 2010 does not survive and is, accordingly, 2 (Crim Appln 3770 of 2009) allowed and disposed of. 4. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the Respondent No.2. This application has been filed for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. A complaint was filed for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent No.2 gave her consent for quashing the complaint and the learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order under section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C., acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the offence punishable under section 420 is a compoundable offence. However, other offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, and 474 of I.P.C. being non-compoundable offences, therefore, the Applicants filed this application for quashing the said offences. 6. It appears that the Respondent No.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the said complaint. She had already given her no objection for quashing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. Possibly due 3 (Crim Appln 3770 of 2009) to financial constraints, she has not appeared before this Court. However, she had already expressed her intention and had given her no objection for quashing the complaint pending before the learned Magistrate. An another circumstance which indicates that the complainant has no intention to pursue the matter which can be seen from the fact that the complainant has already executed a registered sale deed dated 21st June, 2004. 7. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386], this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash a complaint even if it is non-compoundable. The Apex Court in the said case has clearly held that the inherent power of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not limited or restricted by virtue of limitations imposed by Cr.P.C. under section 320 on the Magistrate. Apart from that, perusal of the complaint clearly discloses that the dispute between the parties are personal one and the complainant has now expressed her intention for not pursuing the complaint by filing an affidavit before this learned Magistrate. 4 (Crim Appln 3770 of 2009) 8. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, since the dispute has been settled by the parties, the complaint can be quashed by exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)