* 1 * W.P. 553.2010 14.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 553 OF 2010 Satish Shankar Paralkar ....Petitioner/Orig.Appellant V/S. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents/Orig.Resps * * * * Ms. Bina R. Pai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State-respondent no.1. Mrs. V.V. Pai, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 14th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This writ petition is preferred by the original accused in complaint being C.C. No. 19/S/1987 for quashing of judgment and order dated 20th April, 2006 of his conviction passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai. The petitioner has preferred an Appeal from the judgment and order being Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2006 which is pending before the Court of Sessions. By the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra * 2 * W.P. 553.2010 14.7.2011 Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Constructions, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 for not registering the society within the statutory period and for not conveying the property in favour of the society. 2. Both the counsel state that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, the petitioner has conveyed the property to the society. Therefore, respondent no.2-the original complainant does not desire to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The parties had brought the fact of settlement to the notice of the Sessions Court in the appeal proceedings. However, since the offences of which the petitioner has been convicted are not compoundable, the Sessions Court could not give any relief to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition has been filed during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner wants to withdraw the appeal in view of the subsequent developments. She files an affidavit to that effect. The same is taken on record. 3. Considering the facts of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to exercise inherent powers of this Court and set aside the order of conviction of the petitioner. Hence, the order. Appeal No. 106 of 2006 is allowed to be withdrawn. The appeal is disposed of as having been withdrawn. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). * 3 * W.P. 553.2010 14.7.2011 The order dated 20th April, 2006 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai convicting the petitioner in C.C. No.19/S/1987 is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Constructions, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. . C.C. expedited. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]