1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2010 Lucky Khan & Ors. ...Applicants v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Chetan Akerkar for the Applicants. Mr. Parab i/b S.B. Telgote for the Respondent No.2. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1/State. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED:- February 23, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2 By the present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed in the Case No. 394 of 2009 dated 3rd November, 2009. 3 The FIR came to be registered at the instance of the Respondent No.2. It was alleged that on 9th October, 2009, there was a confrontation between the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2 regarding some matter in the court. It is further alleged by the respondent No.2 that due to this incident, the applicant 2 assaulted the respondent No.2, as a result of which the Respondent No.2 sustained certain injuries. On the basis of these allegations FIR for an offence punishable under section 326, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 4 The applicant and the respondent No.2 are residents of the same village. It is the contention of the applicants and respondent that due to intervention of the senior members of the locality matter has been amicably settled between them. Hence, present application is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the criminal prosecution on the ground that applicants and the respondent No.2 desire to reside peacefully in their area and to have cordial relations in future. 5 The Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit in reply has reiterated the contentions placed in the petition. Respondent No.2 Abdul Khair Shaikh Alamgir complainant is also personally present in the court and reiterates the factum regarding the compromise between the applicants and the respondent. 6 The petition is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that since the offence is against the society, in view of public policy, the proceeding should not be quashed. Reliance is placed by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in a case of Dashrat Devki Badiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2009. 3 7 As against this, the petitioner and respondent No.2 rely on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 Supreme Court cases 583 and single judge of this court in the case of Ram Kashiram Salvi & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 426. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan cited supra has observed thus: “We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealing between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused..” 8 The learned single Judge of this court in a case of Ram Tulsidas Salvi and others has also held that when the parties have amicably settled their matters and even if the criminal prosecution is continued, it will be exercise to scrutinize the court who pass the proceeding by invoking the powers of the section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts in the present case are almost identical, in the facts mentioned in the above case. 9 So far as the judgment in which reliance is placed by the learned APP is concerned, in the said case though there were several victims, the affidavit was 4 filed by only one of the victims stating therein that he had no grievance against the accused. This court found that since the FIR was one, the proceedings could not be caused in peace mill against one accused. In the present case, there is only one victim, as such the said judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 10 In the present case, it can clearly be seen that the dispute involved in the present matter was purely of personal nature between the accused and the Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 himself has filed an affidavit, that he does not wish to continue with the prosecution. It is thus clear that the pendency of the criminal proceedings would yield no results. I therefore find that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case of Madan Mohan and that this is a fit case wherein this court by exercising the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should quash and set aside the criminal proceedings. 11 In that view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)