SRJ cr.wp.24-28-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.24 OF 2010 Azeez Lalani & Ors., .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., .. Respondents. Shri Ayaz Kahn for Petitioner. Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for the State. Shri H.V.Mehta,for Respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2010 Danesh Korsheed & Ors., .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharshtra & Ors., .. Respondents. Shri H.V.Mehta, for Petitioner. Mr.Ayaz Kahn for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J.. DATE : March 09, 2010. P.C. : 1] Both these Petitions are filed by the Petitioner for quashing proceedings in CC No. 271/PW/2008 and proceedings in CC No.270/PW/2008 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate s 8 th Court at Esplanade. 2] These two Petitions are filed by the parties against each other. SRJ cr.wp.24-28-10.sxw 2 3] In Criminal Writ Petition No.24 of 2010, F.I.R. is registered by Respondent No.2 against Petitioner, alleging therein that he was working as Security Supervisor in the Hotel Intercontinental. It is alleged in the said complaint that on 9th December, 2007, one Shri Edwin Noronah was assaulted by 6-7 persons and he was also assaulted by some unknown persons. It appears that after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against present Petitioner. 4] In Criminal Writ Petition No.28 of 2010, F.I.R. is registered at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in Criminal Writ Petition No.24 of 2010. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that when the Respondent No.3 went to park his vehicle near Hotel Intercontinental, the Security Manager of the said hotel prevented the complainant from doing so and thereafter, assaulted the complainant and has absued him. On the basis of this allegations, the charge sheet has been filed against the Petitioner. 5] During pendency of the Criminal proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. In both these Petitions, the complainant have filed their Affidavits, stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 5] The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Pubjab reported in 2008 (2) page 524 has observed thus:- SRJ cr.wp.24-28-10.sxw 3 We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law . 6] It is an admitted fact that dispute in the present case, between the parties is purely of personal nature. When both the parties have amicably settled the dispute, I find that no purpose will be served in keeping appeals pending. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) in both the matters. (B.R.GAVAI, J. )