1 wp1296.1297.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1296 OF 2010 Sou. Surekha Nitin Jadhar & ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. Shri Devram S. Lande & Anr. ....Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1297 OF 2010 Shri Devram S. Lande & ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. Sou. Surekha Nitin Jadhar & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.Vilas Tapkir for petitioners in WP 1296/10 and for Respondent No.1 in WP 1297/10 Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for Respondent No.1 in WP 1296/10 and for Respondent No.1 in WP 1297/10. Mr. S.R.Shinde, APP for State in WP 1296/10. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for State in WP 1297/10. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ DATED:- AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. These petitions are essentially filed on the 2 wp1296.1297.10 basis of principle expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab[AIR 2008 SC 1969] praying for quashing of C.R.No. 78/07 and 77/07 registered at Junnar Police Station and Session Case Nos.92 of 2008 and 503 of 2008 arising out of the C.R.No.78 of 2007 and C.R.No.77 of 2007 respectively. The complainants as well as some of the witnesses have filed affidavit before this Court that they are not interested in prosecuting the matter against the Petitioners in view of the subsequent amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. 2. The argument though attractive will have to be rejected. In as much as it overlooks that the Petitioners have been charged not only in respect of incident which is regarding personal disputes between the parties but also for offence under section 3(25) of Arms Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act. Besides, it is noticed that there are in all 31 persons involved in the incident, which was common in respect of three C.R.s. The fact that the Petitioners have been acquitted in respect of one C.R. filed by the police constable does not take the matter any further. The fact remains that the trial of the present C.R. will have to be taken to its logical end considering the offence other than personal disputes between the parties. 3 wp1296.1297.10 3. Learned APP states on instruction that in the incident in question in all 31 persons were injured. It is not the case of the Petitioners that all the persons who are injured have filed affidavit before this Court to support these Petitions. 4. In any case, in the peculiar facts of these cases, the reliefs as prayed cannot be granted. Thus understood, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, both the Petitions are dismissed. (U.D.SALVI, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)