1 634.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 634 OF 2011 Mr.Amith Chandulal Punjabi. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Shounak Mehta for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. S.K.Dubey for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 14th July 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this application, the applicant is praying for quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.110/PS/2011 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli arising out of C.R.No.207/2010 registered with Malad Police Station. 3. The F.I.R. in question came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging therein that some persons demolished the panpatti shop which was in front of complainant’s shop. It is alleged that on enquiry the complainant came to know that this was done at the instance of a builder known as Amit Punjabi. 2 634.11-apl 4. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties. The complainant is present in the Court. He is identified by his advocate. He reiterates the fact of settlement. 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.. 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). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)