1 wp2012.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2012 of 2011 Mr. Souren Chander Allimchandani ....Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the petitioner. Miss Nisha Shriniwasan i/b. Harish Jagtiani & associates for respondent no.2. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings arising out of C.C. N o. 383/PW/2011 in C.R. No. 63/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 3. There was a dispute between the present petitioner on one hand and the respondent no.2 who happen to be his brother, father and mother on the other hand. The dispute has been amicably settled in view of the consent terms placed on record before this Court in Criminal Application No. 182/2011. 4. It is to be noted that when the Criminal Application No. 182/2011 was heard by this Court, noticing that the dispute is purely between the members of 2 wp2012.11.sxw the family, this Court had persuaded the learned Counsel for the petitioner therein and the respondent therein to work out the possibilities of amicable settlement. It is further to be noted that I had myself persuaded the parties by personally meeting them in my Chambers in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties so also the learned APP to settle the matter. Ultimately, with the efforts taken by Shri Ponda for the petitioner herein and Shri Jagtiani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and the father and mother of the parties, the matter was finally settled. 5. However, at that time since this petition was pending before the Division Bench, the present petition could not be disposed of. However, it was specifically agreed that respondent no.2 will give no objection for quashing the present petition also. 6. Subsequently, since the Division Bench noticed that petition did not pertain to the assignment of Division Bench and pertains to the assignment of the Single Judge, petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the said petition with further liberty to file afresh petition before this Court. That is how the present petition is before this Court. 7. Miss. Nisha Shrinivasan, the learned Counsel holding for Mr. Harish Jagtiani & Associates states that respondent no. 2 has no objection for quashing the proceedings. However, she seeks a week’s time to file appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 inasmuch as respondent no.2 is out of station on account of personal difficulty. 8. It appears that the learned APP vehemently opposes the petition. However, taking into consideration the amicable settlement between the members of the family and that too in a dispute which is purely of personal 3 wp2012.11.sxw nature, I am not inclined to entertain the opposition on behalf of respondent- State. 9. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the members of the family, I find that the present proceedings are also required to be quashed. In any event, the dispute between the parties is totally of personal nature and there is no element of public law involved in the matter. 10. In that view of the matter, in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. 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. 11. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)