1 454.11-apl-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 454 OF 2011 Irfan Saeed Kewal and others. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Chetan Akerkar for the applicants. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. A.A.Fanibanda for respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 455 OF 2011 Vishal Champaklal Khatri. ... Applicant. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. A.A.Fanibanda for the applicant. D.R.More, APP for the State. Chetan Akerkar for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 22nd June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2 454.11-apl-- 2. Criminal Application No.454/2011 has been filed for quashing Criminal Case No.237/PW/2010 pending in the 32nd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mubai registered in pursuance of F.I.R.No.392/2008 for the offences punishable under section 452, 341, 143,147, 149, 506(2), 427 of I.P.C. 3. Criminal Application No.455/2011 has been filed for quashing Criminal Case No.238/PW/2010 pending in the 32nd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mubai registered in pursuance of F.I.R.No.393/2008 for the offences punishable under section 323, 143,147, 149, 504, 506(ii), 341 of I.P.C. 4. The applicant in Criminal Application No.455/2011 is a complainant- respondent in Criminal Application No.454/2011. The applicant No.4 in Criminal Application No.454/2011 is complainant- respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.455/2011. The cross complaints arise out of dispute between the parties for running hotel Milan. The complainants in both cases allege that the accused had taken forcible possession of the hotel and, as such, cross complaints have been filed. 5. The complainants in both the cases have filed their respective affidavits stating therein that the dispute has been amicably settled by them and that they do not want to proceed with the complaints filed by them. Both the complainants are present in the Court. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit on behalf of respondents- complainants are also filed reiterating settlement between the parties. From the perusal of the complaints it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 3 454.11-apl-- 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 in both these applications is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. Costs to be paid by the respective applicants 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.)