The Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving serious offences against society, and that no leniency should be shown to the accused who have committed crimes of a serious nature.

P.D. Naik, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 2 waive service.

2. The Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Code') and sought quashing of the proceedings in RCC No. 3212 of 2015. The said proceedings are arising out of CR No. 32 of 2014 registered with Velha Police Station, Pune Rural. The Second Respondent is the first informant who had lodged the first information report (`FIR') for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 387, 447, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC'). On the basis of the registration of FIR, investigation was completed by the Police and charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :

(a) The Complainant-Respondent no. 2 herein left his house for work. His wife was alone at home. When he returned home for lunch, he was informed by his wife that at about 9.30 a.m; the Applicant no. 1 had visited the house and was inquiring about the whereabouts of the complainant. The Applicant no. 1 had further stated that he wants to recover `Hafta' (extortion) from the second Respondent-complainant. The Applicant no. 1-accused had also warned that in the event the complainant is not found at home, he will be traced and killed. The Applicant no. 1 was accompanied by Applicant no. 5 and two to three other unknown persons.

(b) On 4th April 2014, the Applicant no. 1 and other accused had again visited the house of the second Respondent at about 9.00 p.m. The second Respondent was at home at that point of time. The accused stated that as the complainant has been allotted a contract of repairs by Gram Panchayat, the complainant has not yet paid the money to the Sarpanch of Wangani namely Bapu @ Rohidas Choraghe (Applicant no. 1). The Applicant no. 1 then gave a call from his mobile and handed over the mobile phone to the second Respondent (complainant). The person on the line was Applicant no. 4. While having conversation, the Applicant no. 2 intimidated and abused the second Respondent. He also stated that the second Respondent should hand over an amount of Rs. 5,000/- immediately to Applicant no. 1. He was also threatened that he will have to face dire consequences and it will be difficult for him to live his life. The Applicant no. 4 also threatened that the accused who had visited his house, would kill him if he did not part with the amount to them. The accused also warned the second Respondent that his house is situated in a lonely place wherein his wife and children are residing and in other way threatened the entire family of dire consequences. In view of the threats, the second Respondent handed over a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused persons, who had visited his house. On apprehending the danger at the instance of the said accused persons, the second Respondent lodged an FIR with Velha Police Station on 5th April 2014 and on the basis of his statement, the FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences.

4. The Applicants have submitted before this Court that the dispute between them and the second Respondent has been amicably settled and on that ground, the subject criminal proceedings may be quashed. The prayer for quashing in the application is also supported by the second Respondent by tendering an affidavit dated 28th March 2016 before this Court. In the said affidavit dated 28th March 2016, the second Respondent has mentioned that he is the first informant in connection with CR No. 32 of 2014. The dispute has been amicably settled amongst themselves and that he do not wish to pursue the criminal prosecution which has been instituted as against the Applicants. It is also stated that the second Respondent does not have any objection if the prosecution as against the Applicants is quashed and set aside. He further stated that in view of the amicable set