1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2012 OF 2009 Nasim Bundu Shaikh & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay for Petitioners. Ms. M. H. Mhatre - APP for State. Mr. Yogesh Israni for Respondent Nos. 2 to 16. AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2009 Asif Abdul Mussa Nanabawa & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Yogesh Israni for Petitioners. Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal - APP for State. Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioners who are complainants have filed these petitions for 2 quashing the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 749 of 2008 arising from C.R. No. 205 of 2007 and Sessions Case No. 106 of 2008 arising from C.R. No. 204 of 2007 pending with 26th Court at Sessions at Greater Bombay. The petitioners are complainants therein. They have however moved these petitions for quashing and in view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The petitioners have stated in their petitions that they have shared their happiness and sorrows for a long period and since they belong to the same community they have developed good and cordial relations with each other. According to the petitioners the incident dated 27th July 2007 in which some people were hurt on the spur of the moments and in any case they do not wish to proceed further in view of the settlement. 2. Writ petition No. 2013 of 2009 has been filed by rivals of the petitioners – complainants in the earlier case who have also filed a complaint in respect of the same incident. They have filed this petition for quashing on the same grounds as above. The parties have also filed affidavits in respective petitions supporting the prayers of the petitioners 3. The dispute between the parties appears to be restricted to the parties and the society at large is not concerned with the said dispute. Having regard to the law laid down in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State 3 of Punjab [(2008)4 S.C.C. 582] and Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. [2008(4) KLT 417 (SC)], I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to allow these petitions in terms of prayer clause (i), which reads as follows: “Writ Petition No. 2012 of 2009 : (i) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 749 of 2008 pending with 26th Court at Sessions at Greater Bombay arising from C.R. No. 205 of 2007 of MRA Marg Police Station; Writ Petition No. 2013 of 2009 : (i) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 106 of 2008 pending with 26th Court at Sessions at Greater Bombay arising from C.R. No. 204 of 2007 of MRA Marg Police Station; 4. Order accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)