1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1064 OF 2009 Mr.Devesh Dixit & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Pradhan with Aaradhna Bhandi i/by Mr.A.R.Pitale for the petitioners. Mr.H.J.Dedhi, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Harsharaj Modi for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The 2 nd respondent appears in person and tenders his affidavit which is marked X for identification and is taken on record. The petitioners are being prosecuted alongwith another accused Mr.Murli Venkat Rao for the offences punishable under section 420, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the learned trial Judge, a joint application was filed by the petitioners (accused nos.2 and 3) 2 and the 2 nd respondent. In the said application it is recorded that there has been a settlement between the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent. They stated that the petitioners have agreed to pay certain amount to the 2 nd respondent. It is stated in the affidavit tendered today that a sum of Rs.6 lacs has been paid by the petitioners in full and final settlement. In the affidavit, the 2 nd respondent has stated that he does not want to prosecute the petitioners but he wants to proceed only against the 1 st accused. 2. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and considering the fact that there is a commercial settlement between the petitioners and 2 nd respondent, now no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as against the petitioners. In view of the settlement between the parties, continuation of proceedings will cause undue harassment to the petitioners as well as to the 2 nd respondent. In the circumstances, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3 3. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : 1. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c), in so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is clarified that the prosecution will continue as against the 1 st accused (Mr.Murli Venkat Rao). 2. Petition is disposed of in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)