.UP 10 2; Draft, newprinter; -n -PA4 -y -dFX-NORMAL -Fx -e; dumbp L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R .HM3 .FM3 .HE1 (-#-) ...................L.....T.......T.......T.......T....T..........T...J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1628 OF 2004@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ms. Divya Jyoti Jagdish Chandra Sharma ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.K. Chourasia h/f A.M. Saraogi for petitioner Mr. I.S. Thakur, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Shrirang Shrimani, Adv. for R. Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE AND @@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2004@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA P.C..@@ AAAA .SP2 1. Heard Mr. Chourisia for the petitioner, Mr. Thakur, the learned A.P.P. appears for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shrimani appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner had lodged a complaint with respect to certain transactions which she had with HDFC Bank and grievance was that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 misused their position. It appears that after lodging the complaint an understanding has been arrived at and an agreement has been signed between the petitioner on the one hand and the HDFC Bank on the other. It is agreed between the parties that if the petitioner drops the proceeding being MICR No.3/2003, the HDFC Bank will see to it that the disputed amount of Rs.5,03,000.00 with respect to which the complaint has been lodged, will be returned to the petitioner. In view of this understanding arrived at on 1.6.2004, an application was made to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 31.7.2004 praying that either the case be withdrawn or the same be compounded. The learned Judge in fact passed an order on the same day "allowed". However, it appears that the Officers of the D.N. Nagar police station took a view that since the F.I.R. had been registered, it will still remain alive and it is because that the present petition was required to be filed. 3. We have heard the counsel for all the parties. Mr. Thakur, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has taken instructions from the Officer concerned and submitted that he is leaving to the Court to pass an appropriate orders. In this circumstance, in our view, the proper course will be that the concerned FIR ought to be quashed and the charges under Sections 406 IPC r.w. 420 of IPC to be dropped by directing to the concerned Officer not to keep the FIR alive since the understanding between the parties has already been arrived at. Accordingly MICR No.3 of 2003 registered by the respondent No.1 will stand quashed. The HDFC Bank will release the amount to the petitioner. Petition disposed of.