MP 1 APL312_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2011 Mr. Roshan Balkrishna Thakur and others ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Mr. Parvez Menon, Advocate i/b. M/s. Majeed Memon & Associates for Applicants. Mr. Ravi Mishra, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. More, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The applicants have moved this Court for quashing the F.I.R. being C. R. No. 39 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 392, 504 r/w. S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicants are the employees of a recovery agency. It appears that the respondent No. 2 - complainant had taken a loan from the HDFC Bank. Since the complainant had defaulted in repayment, at the instance of the HDFC Bank, the applicants have seized the vehicles belonging to the complainant. In this background, the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered at the instance of the complainant against the present applicants. 4. The matter has now been settled between the parties. The respondent-complainant has paid the entire dues. The vehicles have MP 2 APL312_11 been released in favour of the complainant. The consent terms between the parties are placed on record as annexure ‘B’ to the present petition. 5. 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. 6. In view of the 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, 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. 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs 15,000/-. Costs to be paid by the petitioners 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)