1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRTIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1523 OF 2009 Parashar L. Thakkar Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Gaurav Badhekar for petitioner. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. S.N.Raj for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th July 2009 PC :- 1. Rule. Learned advocate for the second respondent waives service. Learned APP waives service for the first respondent. The prayer in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of second respondent. The second respondent lodged FIR alleging commission of various offences including the offences under sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 343, 380, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The quashing is sought on the ground of settlement between the applicant and the second respondent. The second respondent has filed an affidavit supporting the prayer made by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on settlement arrived at between the 2 petitioner and the second respondent. 2. I have perused the allegations made in the FIR. The petitioner claims to be a developer of the property. The second respondent was claiming to be a tenant in respect of the premises in the property. It appears that after lodging of the FIR there was settlement between the parties and in fact a letter was addressed by the second respondent to the concerned Police Officer. The letter records that the second respondent has withdrawn all the allegations against the petitioner. 3. The prayer for quashing was opposed by the learned APP mainly on the ground that on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent the police machinery had to carry out the investigation by spending valuable money and time. The learned counsel for the second respondent stated that to compensate the State, the second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of donation to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. 4. A perusal of the FIR and documents annexed to the petition show that the dispute between the parties was over an immovable property. The petitioner is the developer of the said property and it appears that subsequently the dispute has been settled to the satisfaction of both the parties. 5. Considering the fact that the dispute relates to an immovable 3 property and now there is complete settlement of the dispute, a case is made out for exercising the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and I pass following order :- (a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); (b) All concerned to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly issued by the registry of this Court. 7. It is stated that there is an inadvertant error in the prayer clause (a). It is clarified that the FIR which is quashed is FIR No.583 of 2008 lodged on 14th October 2008 of Vakola Pllice Station. (A.S.OKA, J.)