1 633.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2011 Vedpal Sheoran and another. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. D.H.Shukla i/b. Yash Associates for the applicant. A.S.Shitole, APP for respondent No.1- State. N.K.Bhosale i/b. Shashi Pandey for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 9th August 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside F.I.R.No.294/2005 registered with the Azad Maidan Police Station for the offence punishable under section 365, 368 and 34 of I.P.C. and subsequent proceedings being Criminal Case No.616/PW/2010 pending before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. 3. The F.I.R. in question has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2. It is stated in the F.I.R. That the applicant No.1 was a friend of the complainant. That one Anupkumar was a common friend of the 2 633.11-apl applicant and the first informant. The first informant was in need of an amount of Rs.34,000/- for the treatment of his ailing brother. It is further stated that the first informant requested the applicant to give loan of Rs. 34,000/- to said Anupkumar. It is stated that accordingly applicant No.1 had given a loan of Rs.34,000/- to the said Anupkumar. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that since the said Anupkumar did not return the loan amount, the applicant was harassing the first informant. It is stated that on 6th October 2005, the applicant had called the complainant at C.S.T., Mumbai and from Zunka Bhakar Kendra at Azad Maidan he was kidnapped and threatened to repay the loan. 4. The respondent No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavits stating therein that the complaint in question was filed due to misunderstanding. It is stated that in order to maintain friendly relations they do not intend to proceed further with the criminal proceeding. The said affidavits are taken on record and marked “X' and “X-1” for identification. 5. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Affidavits on behalf of both the respondents are 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 v.. 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 costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 3 633.11-apl 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant/petitioner 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 the present matters. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)