1 Cri.Appln.No.4460/2009 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4460/2009. ( Ganesh Sampat Lawre and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. AK Gawali, Adv. for Applicants; Mr. SB Pulkundwar, APP for State. Mrs.Manjusha S Jagtap, Adv. For Resp.No.2. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 13 th JUNE, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) Sale-deed dated 4th March, 2008, vide document No.1143/2008 was allegedly registered by Respondent No.2 in favour of Applicant no.1- Ganesh. Applicant No.1 subsequently conveyed the property in favour of applicant no.2. The complainant came with a case that her signatures are forged and by impersonation, the document of sale was executed. She challenged the same even by Regular Civil Suit No.591/2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. 3) After allowing the situation to travel for a long time, at Exhibit-E (page 35) there is a decree of settlement between the original complainant Smt. 2 Cri.Appln.No.4460/2009 Chandrakala and the present applicants – Ganesh Laware and Ganesh Chantamani. Reading the settlement, it is obvious with naked eyes, the complainant accepted of execution of the sale-deed. She has accepted that the purchase was as per the prevalent price of the property. She has no grudge, grievance. She accepts execution of the sale-deed dated 4th March, 2008 being document No. 1143/2008. She has repeated that she has received the sale consideration of Rs.1,31,000/-. 4) Curiously, paragraph 4 of the Exhibit-28 in the said civil suit informs that no sooner recording of the settlement/compromise, the present criminal prosecution, vide C.R.No. 330/2009 initiated against the present applicants shall be withdrawn or compounded. However, in spite of such a solemn writing and undertaking, the complainant wriggle out and wants to prosecute the complainant. 5) Considering above facets of the matter, the matter being settled and the complainant (Respondent No.2) – Smt. Chandrakala accepts of having received the sale consideration, as the decree in the said RCS No. 591/2008 has not as yet being challenged, recorded on 29.10.2009, I find that the pending 3 Cri.Appln.No.4460/2009 prosecution is abuse of the process and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the prosecution, subject of challenge, initiated vide F.I.R.No.I-330/2009 at Topkhana police station, Ahmednagar dated 27.8.2009, is quashed. 6) Criminal Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/