21.crapl-772-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2011 Mikhail Zaveri ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for applicant Mr. Aditya Gore i/b Harish Jagatiani for respondent no.2 Mr. A.S.Shitole Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present application, the applicant is praying for quashing of the Sessions Case No. 125 of 2009 pending before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. 3. The FIR is registered at the instance of the respondent no.2 alleging therein that the applicant under threat of weapon had snatched mobile from wife of the complainant. 4. The parties inter-se are related to each other. The applicant is a son of one Tara Pradeep Sood who is married 1 21.crapl-772-11.doc to the respondent no.2-complainant. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties and affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 reiterating the same. The applicant who is a step son of the complainant has also given an undertaking that hereafter he will not misbehave with the complainant or his family members or his siblings and would not harass him. The said undertaking is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. The applicant who is present in Court also reiterates the same. The same is accepted as undertaking to this Court. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a). [ B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 2 21.crapl-772-11.doc 3