:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.524 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.524 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.524 OF 2008 Mr.Shanti Ramanand Sagar & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/by Mr.R.U.Singh , advs. for the Petitioners. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE B.H.MARLAPALLE B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 18th June, 2008. DATE: 18th June, 2008. DATE: 18th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Marwadi the learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is the director of M/s. Amar Pratik Builders India Private Ltd., whereas, the petitioner no.2 claims to be the manager of the said company. The present respondent nos.5 and 6 had entered into an agreements dated 13-5-2004 and 30-5-2004 with M/s.Amar Pratik India Pvt. Ltd for purchase of residential dwellings (A Flat) . It appears that subsequently there was some dispute between the parties and the respondent nos.5 and 6 approached the City Civil Court in S.C.Suit No.653 and 654 of 2008. Two suits were filed because there were two different transactions for two separate units covered by the agreements between the parties. Respondent nos.5 and 6 had also filed a complaint with the Andheri Police Station on 14-3-2008 :2: and it came to be registered as C.R.No.118 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 120B of the I.P.C. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners pray for quashing of criminal proceedings. Mr.Marwadi states that C.R.No.118 of 2008 was subsequently taken over for investigation by Economic Offences Wing Unit-II, Mumbai and it was re-registered as C.R.No.24 of 2008 with E.O.W. 2. While the investigation into the F.I.R. was going on, parties arrived at an amicable settlement, the terms of which came to be reduced in writing in the form of "Consent Terms", which was placed before the City Civil Court in both the suits. As per the said Consent Terms, the present petitioners agreed to re-pay an amount of Rs.87 lacs to the plaintiffs, i.e., the respondent nos.5 and 6 and in turn, the said respondents agreed to give up their claims on the properties covered by the registered agreements referred to hereinabove. Respondent no.5 is present in the Court and he states that he has a consent of his wife to state that both of them have received an amount of Rs.87 lacs in compromise of both the agreements. Respondents, therefore, state that as agreed in the Consent Terms, both, he and his wife have decided not to pursue with the complaints filed and registered as C.R.No.118 of 2008 or C.R.No.24 of 2008 as explained hereinabove. :3: 3. Mrs. Pai the learned APP states that officers from the E.O.W. are present before the Court and as per the instructions, she has received from them, there is no objection to quash the complaint if the complainants do not want to proceed with the same. 4. Hence, by consent, petition is allowed and C.R.No.118 of 2008 (originally registered) and re-registered as C.R.No.24 of 2008 with E.O.W. Unit-II, Mumbai is hereby quashed and set aside. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)