1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4739 OF 2009 Bipin Hemant Pawshe & Anr. ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Amol Patankar for Applicants. Mr. S. V. Saste - APP for Respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. P. P. Runwal for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 09, 2010. P.C. : 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By way of present application, the applicants are praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai being Sessions Case No. 71 of 2009 arising out of Crime No. 474 of 2008 recorded by the Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai. 3. The FIR came to be registered at the instance of the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that his daughter Neha was kidnapped by the present 2 applicants. From the certificate of the medical examination of the victim, it can be seen that she has given history that she was in love with applicant no. 1 and that she had left the house so as to meet the applicant no. 1. She submits that since the applicant no. 1 did not meet her she went to the house of maternal aunt and thereafter stayed in the waiting room. 4. The date of birth of the victim is 2nd January 1991. The date of the alleged kidnapping is 29th July 2008. It can thus be seen that the victim was around 17 years and 6 months on the date of alleged offence. 5. Apart from that the respondent no. 2 father of the victim has filed a reply. He has stated in the affidavit that he had lodged the said complaint out of misunderstanding that his daughter was kidnapped by the applicants. He has stated that however he has come to know that on being reprimanded his daughter left the house on her own accord. 6. In the circumstances, I find that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. The FIR does not disclose any offence punishable under section 363 of IPC. In any case the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 7. In that view of the matter, it is a case wherein in exercise of 3 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 8. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)