1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2009 Abdula Dost Mohammed Sunasra : Petitioner (Orig.Complainant) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Sandeep D. Kadam for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V. Kejariwal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Ms Shobana Shah for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has moved this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 21.4.2004 in C.R. No.181 of 2004 of Kurla police station pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 51st Court at Kurla by C.C. No.383/PW/04 for offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 452, 323, 325, 427, 504, 506(2) of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, prays for quashing of the prosecution on the ground that in the Consent Terms filed before the Arbitrator, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have agreed that they 2 will withdraw all litigations, including criminal, civil or complaints filed with the police authorities. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 admits the terms of the Consent Terms and joins the petitioner in the said prayer. 2. Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties is in the nature of a private dispute where the rights of the parties alone are involved and the public at large are not concerned with, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to accept the plea of the parties and quash the complaint, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punajb [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors. (MANU/SC/8122/2008) = (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC). In the circumstances, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection. 3. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). S.A. BOBDE, J.