1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2010 Farzang Adi Kolah .... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. Girish Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b Mr. Ninad Muzumdar for the original complainant – Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is present. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. Respondent No.2 is present in person. 2. This Petition is filed for quashing the FIR registered vide FIR No.102 of 2010 in the MRA Marg Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that after the FIR was registered, parties have settled the dispute amongst 2 themselves. Respondent No.2 is an aunt of the applicant herein and the applicant has returned the entire amount with other expenses incurred by her. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and when inquired, she has stated that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. The consent terms were also filed in this Court and in the said consent terms the accused had agreed and undertook to compensate the complainant and accordingly the said amounts have been paid by him. In clause 10 also, the complainant had agreed to cooperate with regard to application for quashing the prosecution under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code after receiving all shares and other amounts which were due and payable. In view of the consent terms, applicant was released on bail and, thereafter, other formalities which were to be completed under the consent terms are now over. 3. Since this is the personal dispute between Respondent No.2 and the present applicant, in my view, there is no impediment in quashing the said complaint taking into consideration the consent terms filed and the statement made by Respondent No.2 in the court. 4. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed. The offence registered by MRA Marg Police Station vide FIR No.102 of 2010 dated 02/04/2010 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution arising out of the said FIR which is pending 3 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court is accordingly quashed and set aside. Prayer clause (b) of the Petition does not survive since the said account has been de- frozen by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Since the Writ Petition itself is disposed of, Criminal Application No.170 of 2010 does not survive and the same is also disposed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4