1 wp3022.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3022 of 2010 Jitendra Gayabaksh Singh ....Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Amol Patankar for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More-APP for the State. Mr. P.P. Runwal-APP for respondent no. 2. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 15th June, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition the petitioner is praying for quashing complaint being Crime No. 195/2010 of Worli Police Station, Mumbai. 3. The complaint is filed by the respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 465, 567, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused who is relative of the complainant was permitted to occupy the room owned by the complainant, 2 wp3022.10.sxw when the complainant had left for his native place. It is alleged that, however, when the Complainant returned and went to the said room, it was found that accused had sold the said room to one Dinesh Shankar Darji by fabricating the documents. 4. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-complainant stating therein that matter has been amicably settled and since the accused is his close relative, he does not want to prosecute further with the case. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 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. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. 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. 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, 3 wp3022.10.sxw subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant/petitioner 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 matter. (B.R. GAVAI, J)