( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned assistant Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 -State. Mr. J. K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.

( 2 ) AT the joint request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present application is filed by the petitioners-original accused praying for quashing and setting aside the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 before the mahidarpura Police Station being CR No. I-76 of 2005 on appropriate terms and s conditions in the interest of justice.

( 3 ) MR. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint came to be lodged being 10 cr No. I-76 of 2005 before Mahidarpura police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of I. P. C. by respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleging that her husband Rajendrabhai is shah who was practising as Sales Tax - income Tax advocate passed away on 17. 07. 1998. It was further alleged that the administration of movable and immovable property of the family of the complainant was being looked after by the present petitioner No. 1 who was working as a junior with the deceased Rajendrabhai. The office is situated near Royal House, chhaparia Sheri, Mahidarpura and one key of the office was with the present petitioner no. 1. The petitioner No. 1 used to deal with all files of deceased Rajendrabhai and after his death, files were kept by petitioner no. 1. On demand for handing over the same, promises were made that the files were handed over but the same was not done.

( 4 ) IT is further alleged that some Share certificates of Grasim Industries, share transfer forms and the notice for same was received by respondent No. 2 on 03. 03. 2004 and the respondent No. 2 was called for giving the explanation within 7 days. It is further alleged that from reading of transfer forms, the respondent No. 2 came to know that some shares were transferred in the name of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 by creating some forged documents. It is further alleged that in the forms, the seal and signature of manager of ICICI Bank was also found but on verification, it was found that the Bank has not supplied such seal and accordingly, the complaint was filed with suspicion that since the petitioner No. 1 who was with the deceased as Junior might have taken these shares and transfer Forms.

( 5 ) MR. Dagli has further submitted that entire complaint is based upon suspicion and so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, in the span of about 27 years, the petitioner has served honestly and diligently with the husband of the complainant. He has further submitted that at no point of time, any grievance either from any of the clients or from deceased husband of the complainant was ever received. Mr. Dagli has further submitted that after filing of the complaint, settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant and an affidavit was filed by the complainant on 16. 07. 2005. The said affidavit is annexed along with the petition at Annexure B. It is stated in the said affidavit that because of the old age, the complainant could not come to the Court. However, the said affidavit would be treated as her desire. It is further stated in the said affidavit that she has received the shares of Grasim Industries and an affidavit dated 11. 07. 2005 was made to this effect. It is further stated that the Shares are now in the name of the complainant and they are lying with her. With regard to files, she has stated that all the files are at the office of her husband and hence, the complaint is required to be quashed. Mr dagli has, therefore, submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the affidavit produced on the record of this Court, it is not in the interest of any one to proceed with such complaint and hence, it is required to be quashed