JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this petition on November 28, [SECTION]88 under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing Criminal Case No. 53 Misc. of [SECTION]89 filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, and Criminal Case No. 55 of [SECTION]88 filed by respondent No. 2 before the same Court. Both the criminal cases are filed against respondent No. 3 for having committed offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as under :
2. The respondent No. 3 is a religious head of sub-sect of [ENTITY] known as "Dawoodi Bohra" sect. The [ENTITY] are Shia Muslims and respondent No. 3 has large number of followers both in India and abroad. The principal mosque of [ENTITY] community is located on Saifee Jubilee Street and is known as Saifee Masjid. The area where this mosque is situate is densely populated and nearabout this mosque, there are mosques of Sunni Muslims. The Muslim community observed [ENTITY] between August 15 and August 24, [SECTION]88. There are religious differences between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and these differences are reflected in the observance of [ENTITY]. The two sects of the Muslim communities have divergent views as to who immediately succeeded [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] believe that [ENTITY] nominated his successor during his lifetime and he was [ENTITY], the son-in-law of [ENTITY]. The [ENTITY], on the other hand, believe that on the death of [ENTITY], elections were held and [ENTITY] was elected as the successor of the [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] subsequently appointed [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] appointed [ENTITY]. On the death of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] was the 4th Caliph. The [ENTITY], who believe that [ENTITY] succeeded the [ENTITY], do not accept the authority of the three Caliphs, i.e. (1) [ENTITY], (2) [ENTITY], and (3) [ENTITY]. These differences between the two sects have existed over centuries and has been the cause of religious enimosity. These differences have some times led to violent clashes between the members of the two communities in India and particularly in Lucknow and other parts of Northern India.
3. As mentioned hereinabove, the period of mourning was between August 15 and August 24, [SECTION]88. On August [SECTION], [SECTION]88, which was a Friday and day of prayers for members of both the sects, the members of Sunni sect complained that their religious meetings in five mosques which surround Saifee mosque were disturbed as respondent No. 3 addressed the getherings of members of Shia sect on loudspeakers and loudspeakers were placed in such a manner that religious meetings of [ENTITY] in the surrounding mosques will be disturbed. The members of Sunni sect thereupon lodged complaint at Dongri police Station about the nuisance caused. On August 22, [SECTION]88, the members of Sunni sect complained that respondent No. 3 in the afternoon uttered '[ENTITY]' while giving dis-courses from Saifee mosque. '[ENTITY]' is an expression of extreme displeasure or curses. The respondent No. 3 uttered '[ENTITY]' on three [ENTITY], viz. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The respondent No. 3 also uttered '[ENTITY]' against [ENTITY] who was youngest wife of the [ENTITY]. The '[ENTITY]' was repeated thrice by the congregation of Shia Muslims gathered in Saifee mosque. The '[ENTITY]' uttered by respondent No. 3 and by the members of Shia sect was announced on loudspeakers and was heard by people in the locality. The locality where this mosque is situated is principally habitated by Sunni Muslims and the '[ENTITY]' on the loudspeakers disturbed the prayer meetings of Sunni Muslims. The utterances of '[ENTITY]' by respondent No. 3 and repetition of the same by members of Shia sect created commotion in the locality and prayers were disturbed. The news of utterances of '[ENTITY]' spread like wild fire in the Muslim community. The respondent No. 2 lodged N.C. Complaint bearing No. [SECTION][SECTION] of [SECTION]88 at Dongri Police Station against the utterances by respondent No. 3.
On behalf of Sunni Muslim community, a meeting was convened on August 28, [SECTION]88 under the Chairmanship of [ENTITY]. Several speeches were delivered at the meeting using provocative language against Dawoodi Bohra community and a demand was made that respondent No. 3 should tender apology to Sunni Muslims for utterances of '[ENTITY]'. The respondent No. 3 was called upon to tender apology before September 1, [SECTION]68. The respondent No. 3 did not tender any apology and thereupon members of Sunni sect pasted some pamphlets using objectionable language against respondent No. 3 in the area where the mosques are situate. The press also carried information about the happenings of these events.
4. September 2, [SECTION]88 was a Friday and in the afternoon, [ENTITY] was offered at mosque where members of Sunni sect has gathered in considerable number. Members of Shia sect had also gathered to offer [ENTITY] in Saifee mosque. While the prayers were offered, the son of respondent No. 3 started performing 'Matam' (beating of the chest, self-ilagellation, and wailing done by the [ENTITY] during [ENTITY] as a mark of mourning). Matam was done very loudly so as to disturb the prayers offered by Sunni Muslims in their mosques. This created commotion between the two communities and stones, brick-bats, chappals, etc. were hurled by members of both the sides. The Police personnel who were on duty tried to pacify and control the members of the two sects but were unsuccessful. Members of both the sects did not heed to the warning given by the Police Officer and indulged in violent activities by pelting stones and soda water bottles at each other. In this riot, several persons were injured, several cars and scooters were damaged and some godowns and shops were looted by the violent group. At least two persons died and more than 50 persons were seriously injured. The riot continued even on September 3 and September 4, [SECTION]88 causing wide spread damage both to the person and property.
5. To bring about peace between the two sects, the leaders of both sects held meeting and Dr. [ENTITY], Minister for Urban Development, offered his office to bring about amicable settlement. It was agreed at the meeting that respondent No. 3 will issue statement expressing regret for his utterances of '[ENTITY]'. Accordingly, a statement was issued on September 3, [SECTION]88 by the Minister, but the leaders of Sunni sect were not satisfied with the statement. Thereupon statement was issued on the letter-head of respondent No. 3 on the same day. The leaders of Sunni sect raised objection that the statement did not bear signature of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the same was not acceptable. Another statement was then issued but that also did not satisfy the feelings of the members of Sunni sect. A demand was made by members of Sunni sect that respondent No. 3 must appear on television and offer public apology to bring about peace and amicable settlement. At this juncture, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra intervened in the matter and offered his suggestions for reaching the settlement. A meeting was convened by the leaders of the two sects at the residence of the Chief Minister and it was agreed that a statement accepted by the leaders of both the sects will be signed by respondent No. 3 on his letter-head in the presence of the Chief Minister and that fact would be announced on television. Accordingly, statement was signed and that fact was telecast on September 5, [SECTION]88. The statement reads as under :-
"Bismillah Al-Rehman Alrahim, In the name of [ENTITY], the most Beneficent and the Most Merciful.
Praise be to [ENTITY], Peace be upon [ENTITY], [ENTITY], and his closen progeny and companions.
Keeping in mind the prestige of [ENTITY], the unity and brotherhood of [ENTITY] and its traditions for which I and my predecessors have striven hard, because of some words said by me on 22nd August, [SECTION]88, the religious sentiments of Sunni Muslims were hurt, for which I wish to be excused.
It has always been my endeavours that in spite of the differences in the beliefs, mutual unity and love must prevail in Ummat because all of us are of firm belief that we are united on the Kalimah 'La-Ilaha-Ilahhah'.
Yesterday an unpleasent situation occurred in this city and because of this strong bonds of [ENTITY] became weakened. It is in the mutual interest of all of us that we forget this anguish and embrace each other with sentiments of love and brotherhood.
I pray to [ENTITY] that he may guide us on the right path and increase the prestige of [ENTITY]."
In accordance with the amicable settlement arrived at the intervention of the Chief Minister, peace and normalcy returned to disturbed areas and members of both the sects started mixing with each other in social and commercial relationship. No untoward incident took place since the date of the amicable settlement. The press also carried the news of settlement and the leaders of Sunni sect accepted the statement made by respondent. No. 3 in the larger interest of maintaining peace and amity in the Muslim community.
6. On September 23, [SECTION]88, respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Case No. 53/Misc. of [SECTION]88 in the Court of Additional Chief Motropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay against respondent No. 3 for having committed offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The complaint is based on incident that occurred between August [SECTION], [SECTION]88 and Sept. 5, [SECTION]88. The gravamen of the charge against respondent No. 3 was that he had wantonly given provocation with intent to cause riot and thereby committed offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The complaint also sets out that respondent No. 3 voluntarily caused disturbance to the assembly of Sunni sect while engaged in performance of religious worship and thereby committed offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The respondent No. 1 alleged that respondent No. 3 deliberately with the intention of wounding his religious feelings, uttered words and thereby is liable to be punished under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The complaint also recites that respondent No. 1 intends to file separate case for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and in respect of the proposed complaint, sanction would be sought from the State Government after reserving the right to challenge the constitutional validity of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] which demands sanction of the State Government for prosecution under those Sections. The respondent No. 1 demanded that warrant should be issued against respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 should also be directed to surrender his passport. We are not referring to several other averments in the complaint which have no relevance to the ingredients of the offences but are set out only to indicate repugnance for the action of respondent No. 3.
The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded verification of respondent No. 1 on September 27, [SECTION]88 and by a speaking order directed process of summons to be issued against respondent No. 3 for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Respondent No. 2 filed another complaint being Case No. 55 of [SECTION]88 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay against respondent No. 3 in respect of the same incident and charging respondent No. 3 for having committed offences under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is required to be stated that respondent No. 2 is shown as one of the witnesses in the long list of witnesses furnished by respondent No. 1 while lodging the complaint. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate entertained the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 also and issued process.
On November 12, [SECTION]88, respondent No. 1 addressed letter to State Government seeking sanction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] to prosecute respondent No. 3 for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The letter claims that sanction is not required because the requirement of sanction is ultra vires of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] but the sanction is sought as the State Government has failed to carry out the primary function of maintenance of law and order. The respondent No. 1 threatened the State Government that if suitable answer is not received within 30 days, then respondent No. 1 would assume that the sanction is refused and would seek appropriate relief.
On receipt of this letter, the State Government instituted the present proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing the two complaints filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay.
7. Shri Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, submitted that the Government is not concerned with the merits of the pending prosecution but has approached this Court seeking relief under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as the Government apprehends that continuance of the prosecution would foul the atmosphere and break the spirit of settlement arrived at. It was contended that as the issue involved led to violent action, the Government had to intervene to bring about amicable settlement and continuance of the prosecution would defeat the purpose. Shri Advocate General submitted that every offence has a social, economic or religious cause and after careful consideration, the Government has come to the conclusion that elimination or eradication of these causes of the crime would be better served by not proceeding with the prosecution. The Government is acting probono publico and has decided to approach the High Court to quash the pending prosecution for a wider benefit of maintaining public peace in the larger context of public justice and for deeper considerations of promotion of long lasting security. Shri Advocate General sounded apprehension that the continuance of prosecution would lead to communal fued and violence may re-erupt in the sensitive localities of City of Bombay. Shri Advocate General also submitted that the observation of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while issuing process that the Court is a best place to resolve various controversies is entirely incorrect. In case the controversy is re-opened then it would lead to bitterness between the two factions and the public tranquility would be jeopardised.
8. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, urged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have exercised the statutory right to file prosecution and as the ingredients of the offence are clearly set out in the complaint, it is not permissible to stifle the prosecution on imaginary grounds of maintenance of public order or tranquillity. Shri [ENTITY] did not dispute that it is permissible for the State Government to approach this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] even though the State is not party to the prosecution pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Shri [ENTITY] submitted that taking into consideration the circumstances leading to commission of offence by respondent No. 3 and the seriousness of the charges, it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings. The learned counsel urged that powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] should be exercised sparingly and certainly not in cases where prosecution is launched against religious leader whose utterances led to widespread riots.
9. [SECTION] of the [ACT] reads as under :-
"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
Provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] prescribed that the High Court has jurisdiction to pass order to secure ends of justice. The ambit of powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], . Chief Justice [ENTITY] speaking for the Bench observed that [SECTION] was enacted to emphasise the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then High Court will entertain the application and make the necessary orders even though the application is not one contemplated by the Code. These observations were made while entertaining the application to expunge remarks made by the Sessions Judge against a trial Magistrate and when the contention was raised that the application does not fall either under [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the [ACT] and, therefore, relief could not be granted. The Full Bench observed that the Jurisdiction under [SECTION] is very exceptional jurisdiction and should be exercised in most exceptional cases to prevent irreparable harm. [SECTION] of the [ACT], [SECTION]73 specifically refers to inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of Justice. It is necessary to determine on the facts and circumstances of the present case whether powers should be exercised to secure ends of justice.
10. The principles to be borne in mind while exercising powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing the pending prosecution can be gathered from the decision of the Supreme Court laying down what should be the relevant circumstances to be borne in mind while granting permission for withdrawal of prosecution cases. In the decision recorded in the case of [PRECEDENT] :
"The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large."
In the case of [PRECEDENT] , the Supreme Court observed :
"We cannot forget that ultimately every offence has a social or economic cause behind it and if the State feels that the elimination or eradication of the social or economic cause of the crime would be better served by not proceeding with the prosecution, the State should clearly be at liberty to withdraw from the prosecution."
In a later decision [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court indicated some instances where withdrawal from prosecution might be resorted to independently of the merits of the case. It was observed :
"Of course, the interests of public justice being the paramount consideration they may transcend and overflow the legal justice of the particular litigation. For instance, communal feuds which may, have been amicably settled should not re-erupt on account of one or two prosecutions pending. Labour disputes which, might have given rise to criminal cases, when settled, might probably be another instance where the interests of public justice in the broader connotation may perhaps warrant withdrawal from the prosecution. Other instances also may be given."
The next decision of the Supreme Court is in the case of [PRECEDENT] , where again reference was made to some considerations which may justify withdrawal from prosecution : It was said :
"The fact that broader considerations of public peace, larger considerations of public justice And even deeper considerations of promotion of long lasting security in a locality, of order in a disorderly situation or harmony in a faction milieu, or halting a false and vexatious prosecution in a court, persuades the Executive, pro bono publico, sacrifice a pending case for a wider benefit, is not ruled out although the power must be sparingly exercised and the statutory agency to be satisfied is the public prosecutor, not the District Magistrate or Minister. The concurrence of the court is necessary. The subsequent discovery of a hoax behind the prosecution or false basis for the criminal proceeding as is alleged in this case, may well be a relevant ground for withdrawal. For the court should not be misused to continue a case conclusively proved to be a counterfeit. This statement of the law is not exhaustive but is enough for the present purpose and indeed, is well grounded on precedents."
The next decision is [PRECEDENT] Through Spl. Police Establishment where the Supreme Court laid down that the prosecution may be withdrawn not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant grounds as well in order to further the broad ends of public justice, public order and peace. The broad ends of public justice will certainly include appropriate social, economic and political purposes. We may usefully rely upon the considerations which the Supreme Court directed to be borne in mind for granting permission to withdraw pending prosecution in exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
11. Turning to the facts of the present case, it is the claim of the Advocate General that continuation of prosecution is likely to re-open the wounds which are already healed by amicable settlement reached in the meeting of leaders of Shia and Sunni sect. Shri Advocate General submits and, in our judgment, with considerable merit that respondent No. 3 tendered apology at the behest of the leaders of two sects and on the intervention of the Chief Minister of the State and the rioting came to an end as the members of both the sects accepted the settlement reached. No fruitful purpose would be served by reopening the controversy which was amicably settled. The prosecution was instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 several days after the settlement was reached and was announced on television. It is obvious that utterances of 'laanat' by respondent No. 3 and his initial relunctance to tender apology led to grave riots which distructed public life in the locality and caused widespread damage both to person and property. The State Government who is the custodian of maintenance of public law and order has reasonable apprehension that continuation of prosecution instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the religious leader of Shia sect might lead to erruption of fresh feud between the two sects and would affect public peace and tranquillity in the State. It can hardly be debated that for wider benefit of maintaining peace, in the larger context of public peace, the justice, the rights of individual to file private prosecution has to be curtailed. In this connection, reference can be usefully made to the decision of House of Lords in the case of Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers reported in, ([SECTION]77) 3 All ER 70. Lord [ENTITY] in his speach observed that it is entirely appropriate that responsibility for deciding whether to initiate preventive proceedings for injunction or declaration in the public interest should be vested in a public officer, and for historical reasons that officer is the Attorney-General. It was further observed that it is well established that he is not bound to prosecute in every case where there is sufficient evidence, but that when a question of public policy may be involved the Attorney General has the duty of deciding whether prosecution would be in the public interest. Thereafter, it was observed :
"Enforcement of the criminal law is of course a very important public interest, but it is not the only one, and may not always be the predominant one. There may be even more important reasons of public policy why such procedure should not be taken at a particular moment, and it must be proper for the Attorney-General to have regard to them."
The House of Lords, therefore, clearly recognised that though enforcement of criminal law is a public interest, that interest will have to give way to important reasons of public policy. In other words, right of individuals to initiate prosecution must give way to the larger interest of the Society. In the present case, it is undoubtedly true as contended by Shri [ENTITY] that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have statutory right to lodge prime prosecution under the [ACT] and the Magistrate is duty bound to entertain the complaints and proceed with the trial, as soon as the ingredients of the offence are clearly set out in the complaint. Shri [ENTITY] submitted that the right of individual to launch prosecution should not be stifled by reference to the imaginary concept of public interest. We are unable to accede to the submission as it proceeds on the assumption that the claim of public interest set up by the State Government is imaginary. The State Government who is saddled with the responsibility of maintaining peace and public order in the City has experienced that utterances of 'Lddnat' by respondent No. 3 led to violent riot spread over for a period of three days and resulting into serious loss of life and property. The apprehension of the State Government that continuation of prosecution would re-open the bitter feelings and would lead to another round of riots cannot be discarded as imaginary. Indeed, it is desirable that the wound suffered by the members of community due to utterances of respondent No. 3 should be set at rest and should not lead to another inning of violence. The State Government is acting pro-bono-publico and it is not the contention of Shri [ENTITY] that the State Government is motivated to seek quashing of prosecution for any other oblique reason. Though in the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, some allegations were made in regard to the manner in which apology was tendered. Shri [ENTITY] very fairly and rightly did not claim that the State Government is motivated to file the application to protect respondent No. 3. Shri [ENTITY] submitted that respondent No. 3 is guilty of serious misdemeanour and his utterances from the mesque were made to hurt the religious feelings of the members of Sunni sect. We made it clear to Shri [ENTITY] that we are proceeding to examine the claim of the State Government on the clear understanding that the averments made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their complaints are correct and the ingredients of the offence are made out. The question before us is not whether the prosecution launched by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is bona fide or otherwise or whether the prosecution would result into conviction or otherwise. We are examining all the facts and circumstances to ascertain whether this is a fit case for exercise of our inherent powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for purpose of securing ends of justice. In our judgment, taking over all view of all the facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would be secured by quashing the prosecution commenced by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
12. Shri [ENTITY] submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the considerations referred to in the decisions of the Supreme Court for justifying withdrawal of prosecution should not be imported. We are unable to see any merit in the submission. The considerations which are relevant for withdrawal of prosecution would apply with equal force and would be equally relevant while examining whether the pending prosecution should be quashed. Indeed, there is no difference between withdrawal of the prosecution and quashing of the prosecution as result in both the cases is the same. Shri [ENTITY] referred to a passage from Sir [ENTITY]'s Jurisprudence, Seventh Edition, Page 126, where it is observed that although the system of private revenge has been suppressed, the emotions and instincts that lay at the root of it are still extant in human nature, and it is a distinct though subordinate function of criminal justice to afford them their legitimate satisfaction. This passage was relied upon to claim that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to claim vengeance against respondent No. 3 by continuing their prosecution and inviting the Magistrate to record conviction against respondent No. 3. Shri [ENTITY] also claimed that the State cannot claim that High Court should exercise powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] to prevent abuse of process of Court when respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are making use of the process of Court to punish respondent No. 3. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The concept of vengeance against the wrong-doer is a thing of the past and we have travelled far ahead from the days where retributive justice was considered as a fit recourse. In the present time, the concept of reformative justice is an accepted norm and surely, it is not permissible for an individual to continue with the prosecution to seek vengenance against the offender, when larger interest of the Society requires that the prosecution should be quashed. It is futile to claim that as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are using the process of Court, powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be exercised. We are not holding that the prosecution launched by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is defective but we are exercising powers to quash the proceedings with a view to secure ends of justice. In our judgment, the interest of public at large and of the Society is of far more importance than the interest of the individual and such interest or right of an individual to continue prosecution must give way to the larger interest of the society.
13. Reference was made to [SECTION] of the [ACT] to claim that the statutory right of filing complaint conferred on the citizen is really a fundamental right. We are unable to equate statutory right to file complaint with the fundamental right. [SECTION] of the [ACT] guarantees freedom of conscience and practice and propagation of religion, but this right is subject to public order. It is not permissible to claim that right under [SECTION] of the [ACT] enables respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to continue with the prosecution where such continuation is likely to destory public order and tranquillity. In our judgment, continuation of prosecution initiated by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would do great harm to the maintenance of peace and order in this City and, therefore, this is a fit case where powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ought to be exercised. We are conscious that the exercise of powers should be in exceptional cases and powers should not be exercised to stifle the prosecution, but on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution must be quashed.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Application filed by the State Government is allowed and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 53 of [SECTION]88 and Criminal Case No. 55 of [SECTION]88 instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively against respondent No. 3. and pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
15. Order accordingly.