1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2010 Prakash Shripat Yadav & Ors. ..... Applicants. v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicants. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2010 Sanatan Shivram Gaikdwad & Anr. ..... Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..... Respondents. Mr., Yogesh Israni for the applicants. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Both these applications are filed by the applicants who have filed cases against each other. The learned Counsel 2 appearing on behalf of the applicants in both the above matters submit that they have amicably settled the dispute and the respective complaints filed by the applicants in both the above matters against each other may be quashed. 2. On a trivial incident, there was an altercation between the applicants in both the matters against each other and, as a result, there was a scuffle between the parties. A complaint being C.R. No.114 of 2009 was filed by Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.313 of 2010 for the offence punishable under sections 332, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.315 of 2010 filed a complaint under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It is submitted that now dispute is amicably settled. Both the parties are present in court. They have expressed their willingness to quash the said complaints. 4. In my view, dispute is essentially a personal one between the applicants and Respondent No.2 in each case and, therefore, the said complaint can be quashed while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code particularly in view of 3 the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Chanana & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Anr.1 and in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab2 and other subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, both these applications are allowed. 5. C.R. No.113 of 2009 which is registered with Colaba Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 324, 34 read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Criminal Case arising out of the said FIR being Criminal Case No. 223/PW/2010 and C.R. No.114 of 2009 which is registered with Colaba Police Station under sections 332, 354 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Criminal Case arising out of the said FIR being Special Case No.5 of 2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Greater Mumbai are quashed and set aside. 6. Both these applications are accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968 2 AIR 2008 SC 1969 4