1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1540 OF 2010 Pramod Pandurang Pisal and Ors. ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for Applicant Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State Mr.P.R. Yadav for Respondent No..2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR filed by him against the Applicants vide C.R. No. 60 of 2010 registered at Nehru Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 323, 354, 452, 427, 435, 506 (ii) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. The Applicant no.1 is a developer, who had entered in the development 1 agreement in respect of S.R.A. Scheme which has been sanctioned by the appropriate authority. The Respondent No.2's mother was occupying a hut. The SRA Authorities held that she was eligible for allotment of a permanent accommodation. She, however, insisted that since there is a mezzanine floor in the hut, she should be given two flats. That request, however, was turned down by all the authorities and she was asked to vacate the premises and, thereafter, the competent authority took steps to remove the said hut which she was occupying and evicted her from the said premises. A complaint was also filed against her by the Complainant. However, the Respondent No.2, thereafter, filed the present complaint against the Applicants herein. 3. I am informed by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that the parties have now amicably settled the dispute and the Respondent No.2 would not like to proceed with the complaint. I have asked the Respondent No.2 that there has been any objection if the complaint is quashed. He has informed the Court that the said affidavit has been filed by him and that no pressure was put on him. 4. In this view of the matter, since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and taking into 1 consideration the documents which are annexed to the application , in my view, the Applicants have made out the case for quashing the compliant. 5. Application is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)