1 2.wp.39-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.39 OF 2011 Aslam Kabiruddin Furniturewala. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.A.H.H. Ponda, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Shyam Kalyankar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. By this Petition, it is prayed that the FIR pertaining to C.R. No.657/2010 filed by Respondent No.2 with Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, be quashed. 2. At the outset, we may place on record that the Complainant has filed affidavit before us stating in clear terms that she has no intention to proceed against the accused persons named by her in the FIR as registered on 16.12.2010. We are informed that the said FIR has been subsequently renumbered as C.R.No.118/2010 with G.B., C.B., CID, Mumbai. PPD 2 2.wp.39-11 3. There is no doubt that the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 420 can be compounded between the parties. The only question is regarding the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC which has been mentioned in the FIR. Insofar as this offence is concerned, on going through the FIR, the allegations are in the nature of complainant being deceived by the accused and at best of misappropriation of the amount in question. Those allegations cannot be the basis to apply Section 468 of IPC which is offence of forgery. In other words, we are in agreement with the argument of the petitioner that offence of Section 468 of IPC has been wrongly applied in the fact situation of the present case. Learned A.P.P. has fairly accepted that the allegations in the FIR do not make out case of forgery as such. 4. As aforesaid, the other offences alleged are under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC which are compoundable offences. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine the argument as to whether FIR as registered discloses the said offence on the face of it or otherwise, since the Complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal action against the Petitioner. As a matter of fact upon registration of FIR on 16.12.2010, soon thereafter the complainant on her own wrote to the Senior Inspector in-charge of the G.B., C.B., CID, Mumbai on 2.1.2011 3 2.wp.39-11 that upon reexamination of the accounts of the company it is realized that the allegations made by her in her complaint were based on mistake of facts and mistake of interpretation of the accounts of the company. 5. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we have no difficulty in quashing the FIR originally numbered as C.R. No.657 of 2010 dated 16.12.2010 with Santacruz Police Station which has been re-numbered as C.R. No.118 of 2010 with G.B., C.B., CID, Mumbai. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of IPC are concerned, we allow the parties to compound the same; and the FIR with regard to offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC is quashed for the reasons mentioned above. 6. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)