SSK/905 1 appln 497.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 497 OF 2004 Shah Rukh Khan ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Shirish Gupte, senior counsel with Ms.Maya Sarkar i/b. M/s. Madhukar Munim & Co., advocate for the applicant. Mr. Abdul Kadav Millwala, advocate for respondent no.1. Ms. S. v. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the criminal application is heard finally. 2. By way of present application, the applicant is praying for quashing of the process as well as bailable warrant issued against him at the instance of respondent no.2 in C.C.NO.252/MISC/2003 by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court at Bandra. The said complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the present applicant under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The application is already admitted and interim relief is also granted in terms of prayer clause (d). During the pendency of the SSK/905 2 appln 497.04 aforesaid application, the parties have settled the dispute between them amicably and they have filed consent terms dated 14th December, 2011. The consent terms are taken on record and marked as Exhibit "X" for identification. The consent terms reveals that the dispute between the applicant and respondent no.2 is settled amicably and respondent no.2 has agreed for withdrawal of the complaint. The consent terms are signed by the applicant and respondent no.2 and their signatures have been identified by their respective counsel who have also signed the said consent terms. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. On being queried, respondent no.2 stated that the dispute between him and the applicant is settled and he has no objection, if the criminal complaint against the present applicant is quashed and set-aside. 3. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi verses State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 quashed the FIR even though the offence was not compoundable. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(5) LJ.Soft 46. 4. 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 SSK/905 3 appln 497.04 law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially , in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. 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 interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (RANJIT MORE, J.)