* 1 * W.P. 3083.2010 3.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3083 OF 2010 Suryakant V. Rode and anr. .......Petitioners V/S. Akhila Ashok Shetty and anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Sujit B. Shelar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State-respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 3 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 305/PW/2005 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code. * 2 * W.P. 3083.2010 3.2.2011 2. The allegations in the complaint are that, one Kushaba Babanrao Bangar, husband of one of the partners of Suvidha Constructions had forged general irrevocable power of attorney dated 23rd December, 1993 giving power to himself to do various deeds and acts mentioned in the power of attorney and to carry on business of construction on behalf of the partnership firm. Respondent no.1 one of the partners in the firm is the complainant. The petitioners herein are the other accused in the complaint. They are working as peons with the firm. Khushaba Babanrao Bangar died on 13th March, 2003 and the trial against him stands abated. Respondent no.1 who is present in the Court today has filed an affidavit stating that in view of death of the main accused, she does not desire to pursue the complaint against the petitioners herein and that she has amicably settled the matter with them. The affidavit tendered today is taken on file. 3. On 29th October, 2010 this Court, had, in view of the offences alleged in the complaint not being compoundable, directed that notice be issued to the State and the concerned Investigating Officer, for filing a reply to ensure that the complaint relates to a purely private dispute so as to apply the provisions of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Today, though there is no affidavit filed on behalf of * 3 * W.P. 3083.2010 3.2.2011 the State, the Investigating Officer, Azad Maidan Police Station is present in the court alongwith all the papers. The learned APP makes a statement that perusal of the police papers, does indicate that the complaint relates to purely private dispute. In that circumstance, there can be no difficulty in allowing the petition. The complaint relates to the dispute which is essentially a private dispute relating to the business of Suvidha Constructions. With the death of the main accused and mutual settlement between the petitioners and respondent no.1, there are no chances of the proceedings ending in conviction. There is also no public policy involved. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]