1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1571 OF 2007 Capt. Manoj K. Hathi : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.S.K.Chari and Mr.Laxman Shapur i/b. M/s.M.V.Kini & Co., for the petitioner. Ms A.T.Jhaveri, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.Rony P. Joseph for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings pertaining to Criminal Case No.PW/1547 of 2005, including F.I.R. No.107/04 dated 6.3.2004 and the charge-sheet dated 5.7.2005. 2 3. The F.I.R. was registered at the instance of the respondents alleging that the petitioner had uttered some words on the basis of the caste of the complainants. However, it appears that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Director (Air Safety) and there was some dispute between the management and the employees of Air-India. The respondent no.3 has filed an affidavit before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Kurla, Mumbai, stating therein that the complaint was filed under pressures of one Capt. Sansare. 4. The respondent no.2 could not be served as he is found missing. Accordingly, with the leave of the Court, he has been served through newspaper publication and an affidavit of service along with the publication in the newspaper is duly placed on record. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that the respondent no.3 has no objection for quashing the said proceedings. 5. The apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has observed in paragraph 6 as under:- “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court 3 should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 6. It can clearly be seen that the dispute between the parties is purely of personal nature. Since the complainants have themselves stated that the complaint was filed under pressure of somebody else and they do not wish to proceed with the complaint, no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 7. In that view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). B. R. GAVAI, J.