1 1530.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2011 Mr.Basant Meghraj Sethia and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Anil Singh i/b. S.R.Singh for the petitioners. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. V.S.Pande for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 5th July 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners pray for quashing F.I.R.No.2673/2010 registered by Dindoshi Police Station for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii), (x) and (xv) of the Atrocities Act. 3. The F.I.R. is registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging therein that the petitioners attempted to use force for demolishing shop wherein his was carrying his business. 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2- 2 1530.11-wp complainant is also filed reiterating settlement between the parties. He is personally present in the Court and reiterates the same. 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 (i). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)