1 199.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 199 OF 2011 Chandrakant Kashinath Pawar and others. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Rahul Arote for the applicants. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for respondent No.1- State. Ms.Latika Nevrekar for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 9th August 2011. P.C. : Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By this application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.377/2008. 4. The complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 herein alleging therein that the applicants had cheated him in the transaction pertaining to purchase of industrial plot at Shahapur. 2 199.11-apl 5. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have placed on record the consent terms duly signed by them and their respective counsel. The same are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The civil dispute between the parties has also been settled. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)