IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3210 OF 2008. Shri Avnishkumar Brijeshkumar Rastogi & Anr..Applicants. versus Shri Kailash Hukum Singh & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Sudeep Pasbola and Rahul Arote, for the Applicants. Mr. Prashant V. Malik, for the Respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17th September 2008. : 17th September 2008. : 17th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. The advocate for the first respondent waives service. The learned APP waives service for the second respondent. Taken up for final hearing. 2. The first respondent lodged a complaint with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Mumbai against the applicants alleging commission of offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the compliant is that the applicants represented to the first respondent that they were owners of a flat in Green Field Rocks End Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The first respondent agreed to purchase the said flat and an agreement was executed on 20th May 2004. The applicants : 2 : represented to the first respondent that the share certificates issued by the society have been misplaced. In July 2005, a notice was pasted on the said flat under section 13(4) of the Secularisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. When the first respondent contacted the applicants, it was disclosed by the applicants that they had taken a loan from the Indian Bank against the security of the said flat and as the loan was not repaid by them, the possession was sought to be taken at the instance of the Bank. It was stated that the original share certificate was deposited by the Indian Bank. The applicants represented that a cheque in the sum of Rs.29 lacs has been handed over by them to the Bank. Later on, the applicants informed the first respondent that the said cheque has been cancelled and that they will pay the amount by a demand draft. The applicants did not pay the amount to the Bank till 12th September 2005. Therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent has filed an affidavit to this application. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the said affidavit reads thus :- : 3 : "4). I state and submit that the Petitioners abovenamed have handed over to me the Original Share Certificate Bearing No.288 and shares No.1436 to 1440, dated 27/07/98 of flat No.D-1/61, Green Field Rocks and Co-op Hsg.Soc.Ltd., Jogeshwari Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093, in the name of Petitioners on 09/09/08, which I had purchased from the Petitioners abovenamed and in respect of which the case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrates 22nd Court for Mumbai, at Andheri, Mumbai, bearing C.C.No.4950/PW/2005. 5). I state and submit that the abovesaid Petitioners are my neighbours and we have amicably settled the dispute in respect of which the case is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates 22nd Court for Mumbai, at Andheri bearing C.C.No.4950/PW/2005 and now I have no grievance against the present Petitioners with respect to abovesaid flat and want to have cordial relationship henceforth amongst us." 4. In the said affidavit, he has stated that he has : 4 : no objection for quashing the proceedings of a criminal case on the basis of the said F.I.R. 5. The affidavit discloses that now the first respondent received the original share certificate and that there is a complete settlement of the dispute between the applicants and the first respondent. It is disclosed in this application that the dues of the Indian Bank have been cleared by the applicants and settlement has been recorded before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. In the circumstances, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code of 1973. In view of the settlement between the parties, considering the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceeding. Continuation of proceeding will cause undue harassment to both the parties. Hence, the application is disposed of by passing the following order :- (1) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :- "(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and : 5 : set aside the proceedings bearing C.C.No.4950/PW/2005 pending before the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrates 22nd Court at Andheri, Mumbai against the present petitioners, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper." (2) Parties and concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)