1 appln.5318.10-5319.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 5318 of 2010 Rafiq Insanalli Shaikh ....Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 5319 of 2010 Lalu Shivdas Jaiswal ....Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Rajendra Rathod for the applicant. Mr. Rahul Dangle for respondent no.2. Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh for the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 7th June, 2011 P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside FIR dated 1st July, 2010 being CR No. 268 and 269/2010. 2 appln.5318.10-5319.10.sxw 4. The petitioner in Criminal Application No. 5318/2010 is respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 5319/2010 whereas petitioner no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 5319/2010 is respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 5318/2010. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that incidents out of which the aforesaid FIR came to be registered were registered on account of certain misunderstandings between the parties. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 6. It can, however, be seen that the crime in question is purely personal against each other. In my view the present case would be squarely covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SCC 1969) inasmuch as the pendency of these criminal proceedings would serve no purpose other than over burdening the already burdened criminal Courts. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both the petitions. (B.R. GAVAI, J)