1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1383 OF 2007 Rajesh Chandrasen Waghmare & ors ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.A.P. Mundargi with Shri Prakash Wagh for petitioner Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 24th November 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Consent terms tendered by the parties are taken on record. 3. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings in Criminal case no.758/P/2003 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate 34th Court, Vikhroli, Bombay. The respondent no.2 (since deceased) filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan 2 Magistrate that the present petitiner deceived him in the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the manner narrated in the complaint. The learned Magistrate issued the process and has framed a charge against the petitioner. The present petition has been filed for challenging the criminal complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom. During the pendency of the complaint, a settlement was reached between the petitioner and respondent no.2. Unfortunately, respondent no.2 died before the settlement could materialise. His wife was added as respondent no.2A in the writ petition. Counsel for respondent no.2A states before me that the matter has been settled out of court. Petitioners have paid to the respondent no.2A a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as a mutually settled amount by a demand draft dated 13th November 2009 drawn on State Bank of India. 4. In view of the fact that the parties have settled the matter and also in view of the fact that the original respondent no.2 has since died, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. In the absence of respondent no.2 and in view of the settlement there is hardly any chance of prosecuting resulting in a conviction. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 it would be appropriate to allow the settlement and quash the proceedings. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.G. KARNIK,J.)