1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2010 Gurunath Atmaram Patil & others ..... Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Indrajeet Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. P.M. Rajput for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 – original complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 by consent. 3. An offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 395 and 325 was registered with 2 the Mumbra Police Station, Thane in which it was alleged that the Petitioner had assaulted the complainant and his other party workers and had snatched the gold chain of 45 grams from Respondent No.2 herein. It is submitted that the said chain was recovered on the next day since it was found by one of the party workers of the complainant at the scene of offence. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Mumbra Police Station on 17/06/2009 and his supplementary statement to that effect was also recorded. In the said statement, Respondent No.2 had categorically stated that he did not wish to press any charges against the accused for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has filed report under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code dated 11/08/2009 before the learned JMFC. However, the learned Magistrate did not accept the report of the police under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner, therefore, has filed this Petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, states that he has no objection for quashing the said complaint which was registered with the Mumbra Police Station. 5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Chanana & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr.1 and in Madan 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968 3 Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab1, in my view, there is no impediment for quashing the said complaint in view of the no objection given by the complainant. The dispute between the complainant and the Petitioner herein is personal one and hence there is no impediment in quashing the said complaint. 6. Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause 7(a). 7. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 AIR 2008 SC 1969 4