1 796.11-wp-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2011 Mr.Mukesh Lakhamshi Savla. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2011 Mrs.Sushila Chandulal Patani and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 256 OF 2011 Mr.Jitendra Mohanlal Mehta. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. A.M.Saraogi for the petitioners. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. Ms.Krupali Rajani for the complainant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 17th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rue is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. Both these petitions and application arise out of the cross complaints filed by the parties against each other. 2 796.11-wp-- 3. Writ Petition No.794/2011 arises out of F.I.R. No.I-66/2011 for the offences punishable under section 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Writ Petition No.1528/2011 also arises out of the same F.I.R. on the basis of information of respondent No.2 alleging therein that the applicant has changed a page in the agreement thereby changing the amount of consideration for sale of a flat. The Criminal Application No. 256/2011 is based on the F.I.R. No.I-44/2011. The allegation under the said F.I.R. is that the petitioners in the above Writ Petition Nos.796/2011 and 1528/2011 had used criminal force against the applicant. 4. The parties have, now, settled their disputes. The affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No.2- complainant in Writ Petition Nos.796/2011 and 1528/2011. Similarly, in Criminal Application No. 256/2011, an affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 therein stating therein that since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the parties do not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings between them. 5. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2- complainant is also filed both in criminal writ petitions as well as criminal application reiterating settlement between the parties. 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. 6. 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 3 796.11-wp-- need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each. Costs to be paid by the petitioner/applicant by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matters. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)