MP 1 APL125_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2011 Karunan G. Manjakatil ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Mr. N. V. Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Jayesh Talekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, JULY 06, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present application, the applicants are praying for quashing C. C. No. 1911 of 2007 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Belapur. 3. The FIR in question came to be registered on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No. 2. While he was working in the workshop of the applicant, he met with an accident due to the negligence of the applicant, and thereby, sustained injuries. 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and that, he has received the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs by way of compensation from the applicant. MP 2 APL125_11 5. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 is also filed reiterating settlement 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. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 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. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J)