IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1688 OF 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.1688 OF 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.1688 OF 2000. Shivraj Ramdhari Singh. .. Petitioner. versus Shekhar Tukaram Todsam & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.H.P. Vyas, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Redekar i/b. Shri P.M.Khanna, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. D.R. More, APP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH JULY,2008. : 7TH JULY,2008. : 7TH JULY,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned APP for the State. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the order dated 25th September 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. 2. The first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under sections 186, 503, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was dismissed as the first respondent remained absent. The order of the learned Magistrate of the dismissal of complaint resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. An appeal against the acquittal was filed by the first respondent in this Court. By the judgement and order dated 9th July 1993, the appeal was allowed. The complaint was restored to file and the learned Magistrate was directed to re-issue process against the petitioner. 3. An application was filed by the petitioner for disposal of the case on account of want of prosecution. It was pointed out in the application that a process under sections 186 of the Indian Penal Code could not have been issued in view of mandatory provisions contained in section 195(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order. The only ground on which the application was dismissed is that in the appeal against the acquittal preferred by the first respondent, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to re-issue the process. 4. According to the case of the first respondent, on 23rd April 1986, at about 16.50 hours, the first respondent telephoned Malad Police Station and informed the police station that the petitioner was abusing him in filthy language and was shouting at the top of his voice. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has placed on record letter dated 12th April 2006 sent by the first respondent to the Advocate on record of the first respondent. In the said letter, it is stated by the first respondent that there is a settlement between him and the petitioner and he had no grievance against the petitioner. The said letter is marked as ’X’ for identification and same is taken on record. 6. Considering the allegations made by the first respondent, in view of what is stated in the aforesaid letter, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Continuing the prosecution in these circumstances will cause unnecessary harassment to both the petitioner and the first respondent. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. This is a fit case for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]