((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2126 OF 2009 Razi Maqbool Khot & ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Prakash Naik for applicant. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. Mubin H.Solkar for respondent no.2. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1221 OF 2009 Nisar M .hussain Khot & ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Mubin H. Solkar for applicant. Prakash Naik for respondent no.1. H.J.Dedhi, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Leave to amend. Rule. In Criminal Application No.2126 of 2009 learned counsel Mr.Mubin Solkar waives service for second respondent and learned APP waives service for first respondent. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2009 learned APP waives service for second respondent and Mr.Naik ((-2-)) waives service for second respondent. The contesting parties are stated to be personally present. 2. By these application/petition a prayer is made of quashing the private complaints which are in the nature of cross complaints on which orders under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been passed. 3. In both the complaints there are allegations of commission of offences under sections 324, 504, 506, 364, 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint subject matter of Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2009, even offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been alleged. The prayer for quashing is based on the settlement between the parties which is reflected from the document in writing which is annexed as Exhibit-B to Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2009. 4. Learned APP has opposed the prayer by pointing out that the police have completed the investigation and they are in the process of filing the charge sheet. ((-3-)) 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the terms of settlement which are on record, I find that considering the peculiar facts of the case, the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be exercised. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that even during pendency of the application for anticipatory bail, efforts were made for amicable settlement between the parties on the suggestion made by the concerned Court. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Criminal Application No.2126 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); (b) Criminal Writ Petition No.1221 of 2001 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); (c) Parties and concerned Court to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this Court. (A.S.OKA, J.)