1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3601 OF 2010 Atul Goel Applicant versus Anjali Shrivastava and others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1065 OF 2011 Anjali Shrivastava Applicant versus Shankarlal Kishandas Raheja and another Respondents Mr.Satish Maneshinde i/by Snehal Khirnar for applicant in Application No. 3601 of 2010 and for respondents in Application No.1065 of 2011. Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for applicant in APL No.1065 of 2011 and for respondents in Application No.3601 of 2010. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 2nd December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Criminal Application No.3601 of 2010 is filed for quashing the proceedings in Case No.2426/SS/2008 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 342, 354, 406, 323, 341, 385, 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. Criminal Application No.1065 of 2011 is filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.101/PW/2006 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal 2 Code. 3. Respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No.3601 of 2010 is applicant in Criminal Application No.1065 of 2011. The parties to the above applications have now settled all the disputes between them amicably and they have filed consent terms signed by applicants in both the applications and their respective advocates. 4. Respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No.3601 of 2010 (Applicant in Criminal Application no.1065 of 2011) is present in Court. She submits that in terms of clause (2) of the consent terms, she has received a sum of Rs.1,96,339/-. She has no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated at her instance are quashed and set aside. 5. Mr.Shirish Pande, CEO of respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No.1065 of 2011 (Applicant in Criminal Application No.3601 of 2010) is present in Court. He states that he has gone through the consent terms and he has understood the same. He has no objection if the criminal proceedings initiated at their instance are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, consent terms are taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 6. It can thus be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. 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. However, at the same time, the 3 costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 8. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the applicant in Criminal Application No.3601 of 2010. Costs to be paid by the applicant by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of present applications. (R.V.MORE, J.)