1 (Crim Appln 2335 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2335 OF 2010 Sharad Anandrao Patil and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents ----- Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Petitioners Mr.A.S. Shitole-APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 which is registered with Islampur Police Station vide C.R. No. 57 of 2010 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2 (Crim Appln 2335 of 2010) 3. The Respondent No.2 has filed his affidavit in reply and has stated that the said complaint was filed by him on account of political intervention, pressure and influence by certain persons. The Respondent No.2 has stated that he has no objection if the said C.R. is quashed and set aside. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Complainant was assaulted by the Petitioners with soda water bottle on his head and other accused also assaulted with sticks and iron rod. It is also alleged that the Accused No.1 was carrying country made revolver. It is submitted that since the parties have now settled the dispute, the complaint may be quashed. In support of the said submission, he has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 All MR(Cri) 2183 and also on a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court Brother B.R.Gavai J. dated 4 th March, 2010 in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009. In both these cases, it is submitted that similar offences were registered against the Applicants and after the parties had settled the dispute, the complaint was quashed by this Court. 4. The learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the said petition filed by the Petitioners. 3 (Crim Appln 2335 of 2010) He submitted that the said offence is not compoundable and, therefore, this Court may not quash the complaint while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. I have perused the chargesheet, which has been filed by the prosecution. From the complaint, it reveals that the said offence had taken place on account of personal dispute between the Petitioners and the Complainant and it is recorded that the Petitioners had a grudge against the Complainant since he give belligerent looks at the Petitioners. 6. This being the position, it is obvious that the dispute is essentially a purely personal one. The medical certificate enclosed to the chargesheet also indicates that the nature of injuries were not serious or grievous. 7. Therefore, under these circumstances, the ratio of the judgments in cases of Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana and Anr. Reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969, as also the two judgments on which reliance is placed by the Petitioners are squarely 4 (Crim Appln 2335 of 2010) applied to the facts of the present case. 8. Under these circumstances, therefore, the criminal writ petition will have to be allowed. The Complainant is present in the Court. He has stated that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. He reiterated whatever stated by him in the affidavit in reply. 9. Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause 16(a) and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)