* 1 * Cri.Appln.105.2011 11.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2011 Sajid Salauddin Sayyed .......Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Purwant i/by. Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State-respondent no.1. Ms. Aneeta Katariya, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This application is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of FIR vide C.R. No. 658/2010 filed at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 344 Indian Penal Code at Haveli Police Station, District-Pune. Respondent no.2 has filed an * 2 * Cri.Appln.105.2011 11.2.2011 affidavit to support the petition. 2. The facts alleged in the FIR are that, the husband of respondent no.2 is a life convict for the offence of murder committed in the year 2006. The applicant is a lawyer by profession. His senior was dealing with the case of husband of respondent no.2 until his conviction. Thereafter, for the purpose of filing appeal, one Advocate Zanwar had been engaged. It appears that when respondent no.2 had gone to the District Court, the applicant who had come to know her as the wife of the client of his senior, met her and told her that he would get her husband released on bail and that he had already had a talk with her husband in that connection. He demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for doing the work. Respondent no.2 arranged for the amount and paid the same to the applicant, through one Archana Chavan. The application for bail filed on behalf of husband of respondent no.2 was rejected. Thereafter, the husband filed an application for parole leave. On 7th May, 2010 the applicant took respondent no.2 to one, * 3 * Cri.Appln.105.2011 11.2.2011 Mr. Kulkarni in connection with the application for parole of her husband, where it was learnt that the application for parole had been rejected. From there, the applicant took her in his car at Savli Lodging, Pune on the pretext of taking her to his office and committed rape upon her there. Thereafter, the applicant had been calling her on her mobile and asking her to meet him. Later her husband came to be released on bail on 3rd November, 2010 for a period of one month. When on 15th November, 2010 respondent no.2 again received a call on her mobile, she disclosed the incident of rape upon her to the husband. The applicant had called her and asked her to meet him at the nearby square. Respondent no.2 went there accompanied by her husband. The applicant, however, abducted her by forcing her to sit on his two-wheeler. She was taken to a house where she was confined overnight. At para-8 of the present application, the applicant states that now the dispute in the complaint has been settled between the parties and the complainant has no grievance * 4 * Cri.Appln.105.2011 11.2.2011 against the applicant in respect of C.R. No.658/2010 registered with Haveli Police Station. 3. Respondent no.2 in her affidavit states that the applicant resides in the same locality and that now there are cordial relations between the two. She does not desire to proceed with the case as the entire dispute has been settled amicably between the two. The nature of the settlement arrived at between the parties is not disclosed anywhere in the application. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint to the police, it would not be appropriate to allow the same to be quashed on the ground of “amicable settlement between the complainant and the applicant”. The dispute in the complaint is hardly a dispute of personal nature between the parties which does not affect public policy. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]