MP 1 App159_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2011 Shri Ganesh Suresh Dodkade ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Mr. Amit Ghag for the Applicant. Mr. Nakhwa, APP, for the State. Mr. Pawan Mali for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 08, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Applicant has prayed for quashing F.I.R. No. 508 of 2010 dated 13th September 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 184, 134(a) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The F.I.R. is registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 on the allegation that the respondent No. 2 had met with an accident in the car allegedly given by the applicant. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 24th August 2010 whereas, the F.I.R. is registered on 13th September 2009. On the basis of the said crime, the applicant was arrested and released subsequently. However, it appears that, subsequently respondent No. 2 approached employer of the applicant and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. It has MP 2 App159_11 been agreed that the employer of the applicant would pay the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent No. 2. The parties are personally present in the Court. The applicant has handed over a demand draft of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent No. 2 which is accepted by the respondent No. 2. The consent terms duly signed by the parties are placed on record which are duly signed by their learned Counsel also. The said consent terms are marked ‘X’ for identification. 4. The F.I.R. is registered out of an accident which has occurred. There is no element of public law involved in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, I find that the criminal proceedings need to be quashed in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 582. 5. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J)