1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 162 OF 2005 Mr. Vasant Shivram Shinde (Since deceased through his LR’s) 1a. Mr. Uday Vasantrao Shinde & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Smt. Uma Umeshkumar More (Since deceased through her LR’s) 1A. Mr. Dinar Umeshkumar More & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the Applicants. Mr. Deepak Natu i/b. M/s. N. Deepak & Co. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 2A. Smt. A. A. Mane, A.P.P. for Respondent No.4. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Harsha Rele & Sanjeev Singh for Respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is present. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 6, 2010 P.C. : Notice of contempt was issued by this Court on the basis of the alleged breach of orders passed in the Criminal Application No. 2617 of 2004. This Contempt Petition alongwith 2 the said criminal Application were specially assigned to this Court for hearing. Earlier, the hearing was concluded and Judgment was reserved. The learned counsel appearing for the parties mentioned the matter and pointed out that the dispute in criminal Application No. 2617 of 2007 has been settled. Therefore, the Judgment was not delivered. As the parties could not file Consent Terms in Criminal Application, the contempt petition alongwith criminal Application were again taken up for hearing. 2. Today, the contesting parties have filed Consent Terms in Criminal Application No. 2617 of 2004. Perusal of the Consent Terms shows that the dispute between parties has been completely settled. 3. The parties have tendered on record Consent Terms in this Contempt Petition. The same are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. It is stated that the Consent Terms are signed by the Petitioner No.1a, the Respondent No.2 as well as the Respondent No.3. The Consent Terms are duly signed by the Advocates for the parties. The Advocate for the Petitioners states 3 that the Petitioner No.1b has also approved the settlement and an affidavit to that effect will be filed by Petitioner No.1b in this Court on or before 10th June, 2010. He states that a true copy of the Consent Terms will be annexed to the affidavit. 4. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2A undertakes to this Court to file Vakalatnama of the Respondent No.2A on or before 10th June, 2010. He states that he is representing Respondent No.2A who has instructed him to state that the Respondent No.2A has accepted the present Consent Terms and that Respondent No.2A will file an affidavit to that effect in this Court on or before 10th June, 2010. He states that a true copy of the Consent Terms will be annexed to the said affidavit. 5. The said statements of the parties and their respective counsel are accepted. The undertakings incorporated in the Consent Terms are accepted. 6. The Contempt Petition was filed alleging breach of 4 orders passed in criminal Application No.2617 of 2004. I find from the Consent Terms filed in the said criminal Application as well as in the Contempt Petition that all disputes and differences between the parties have come to an end as a result of settlement arrived at between the parties. The main criminal Application No. 2617 of 2004 has been disposed of in view of the settlement. Considering the overall settlement between the parties, I am of the view that this is not a case where an action can be initiated either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. In view of the settlement, the notice issued deserves to be discharged. 7. Accordingly, Contempt Petition is disposed of by passing the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. The statements of the learned counsel appearing for the parties recorded above are accepted. The statements made in the Consent 5 Terms and undertakings therein are accepted. ii. The notice of contempt issued by this Court is discharged. iii. There will be no order as to costs. iv. Civil Application Nos. 86 of 2007, 57 of 2008 71 of 2009 and 44 of 2009 do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. [A.S. OKA, J.]