((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1133 OF 2009 Mahesh Murlidhar Mandhyan Petitioner versus Mrs.Kaushalya M. Mandhyan & anr. Respondents Ubaid Ghawte for petitioner. Mrs.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. Mubin M. Solkar for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the first respondent waives service. Learned APP waives service for the second respondent. It is stated that the petitioner and the first respondent are personally present in the Court. 2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a prayer is made for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by the first respondent alleging commission of offences under sections 465, 467, ((-2-)) 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent who is the first informant is the mother of the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR relate to the certain shares held by the husband of first respondent. The prayer for quashing is made on the basis of settlement between the petitioner and the first respondent which is reflected from the memorandum of understanding ("MOU") dated 28.4.2009 (Exhibit-B to the petition). 3. The first respondent mother has filed an affidavit in this Court recording that all the disputes between herself and the petitioner have been resolved and the terms and conditions of settlement have been recorded in the MOU. Therefore, the first respondent has stated that she has no objection if the prayer in the writ petition is granted. 4. A perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute between the petitioner son and the first respondent mother as regards certain shares held by the father of the petitioner led to the first respondent lodging the FIR.. Now, there is a complete settlement between the petitioner and the first respondent. Considering these ((-3-)) peculiar facts and considering the fact that the petitioner is the son of the first respondent, now continuation of the criminal proceedings will cause undue harassment to both the parties. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); (b) All authorities and the concerned Courts to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA, J.)