1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4872 OF 2010 Nitin J. Purandare .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents. Mr.A.K.Chauhan, for Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr.Amit Sheth, for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JANUARY 14, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions on this application preferred by Applicant/Original Accused No.1 for quashing CR No.158 of 2005 lodged with Santacruz Police Station which is re-numbered as CR No.44 of 2005 by EOW/GB/CB/CID, Mumbai in CC No.102/PW/2006 pending in the Court of LD. Addl./CMM 19 th Court Esplanade, Mumbai. 2. The main thrust of the arguments made on behalf of the Advocate for the Applicant is that the matter has been compromised with the Original Complainant/ present Respondent No.3-Shri Rakesh B. Jain. The learned counsel 2 appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that his client has already filed affidavit to that effect. 3. In support of present application, the shelter of the following citation was taken:- (2008) Bombay S C Case 582 filed by Madan M. Abbot v/s. State of Punjab. The matter cited before this Court was for the offence punishable under section 407 of Indian Penal Code and though the said crime was not compoundable without permission of the Court, such permission was granted by Apex Court though earlier declined by the High Court. 4. Considering the allegations against present Applicant/Original Accused No.1 and considering the charges leveled way back in the year 2005 on the specific facts, shelter of the authority cited could not be taken in favour of the Applicant. This is more so, because one more Accused No.3 is also facing the trial along with the present Applicant/Original Accused No.1. Accused No.2 is reportedly dead. 5. The gist of the offences alleged against all the Accused was that they posed as officers of Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and thereby created fabricated documents of flat concerning transaction in the matter. As such, whether or not, the original Complainant is willing to compound the matter, it is not in the fitness 3 of the situation to allow the quashing of the Complaint when offences are punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 406 and 471 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. After the above arguments and after noticing the factual position, the learned counsel for the Applicant prays for withdrawal of the present quashing application and submitted that his client will face the Trial according to law. Said prayer is accepted. Application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed off. Needless to mention that the Trial Court shall deal with the matter in accordance with the law without being influenced by any observations made herein above. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)