..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.85 OF 2001 1. Major Sri Chakradhar Raut, & 2. Mrs.Varsha Narayan Karandikar. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Nitin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner No.2 Mr.R.N.Singhavi, Advocate for petitioner No.1. Mr.Vikas B. Tapkir, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th November, 2008. DATED : 26th November, 2008. DATED : 26th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioner No.2 - orig.accused No.2, the learned Advocate for respondent No.4- orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant is present. Mr.Singhavi, the learned Advocate for petitioner No.1 states that he has no instructions from his client and his client has not contacted him since last so many years. Hence, he shows his inability to argue the matter. It appears that the petitioner No.1 is not interested in pursuing the matter. 2. The petitioner No.2 is seeking quashing of ..(2).. Criminal Case No.202 of 2000 which is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Court No.8, Pune. The said case is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Advocate for the complainant has stated that the complainant does not wish to pursue his case as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned and the case against her be quashed. The parties have filed consent terms which are taken on record. In view of the consent terms, Criminal Case No.202 of 2000 is quashed in respect of petitioner No.2. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, his matter is disposed of. Liberty to the petitioner No.1 to file fresh proceedings for quashing of the said case if desired. 4. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)