: 1 : 902.apl.749.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 749 OF 2011 Mr. Arvind B. Khot ..Applicant vs Mr. Vijay S. Chougule and Ors ..Respondents Mr. Meghashyam Kocharekar,for Applicant. Mr. R. R. Singh, for Respondent No.1. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2011. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the State . 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR, which is registered vide C.R. No. 89 of 2011, under Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1980 and under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the Applicant abused the complainant in the name of his caste. A complaint was registered on 01.06.2011. After the complaint was filed, the Applicant informed the complainant that he had not made any such statement, as alleged by him. The complainant also, thereafter, in front of the other villagers, : 2 : 902.apl.749.11 who are gathered there, said that he would not like to prosecute the applicant, and that the complaint was filed on account of misunderstanding between the parties. Respondent No.1 has filed his affidavit­in­reply. He has stated in para ‘2’ of the affidavit­in­reply that whatever allegations were made by him in the FIR were due to some misunderstanding and, therefore, he does not wish to pursue the case any longer. He has also stated in para 3 of his affidavit­in­reply that several members of the village had settled the misunderstanding between the complainant and the Applicant and, in order to maintain peace and harmony in the community and in view of the undertaking given by the Applicant, he had decided to put an end to the entire dispute. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s State of Punjab AIR (2008) SC 1969, has held that where the dispute between the parties is of a personal nature, this Court, while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can quash FIR even if such a complaint is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court also in several cases has followed the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case. 4. In this view of the matter, we do not see any impediment in quashing FIR, in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties. Though the complaint has been filed under the Protection of Civil Rights and under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocity)Act, 1980, which is the legislation passed for the purpose of protecting the interest of person belonging to the backward community, taking into consideration the nature of allegations made in : 3 : 902.apl.749.11 the complaint and in view of the retraction of the said statement by Respondent No.1, in our view, the allegations made, therefore, do not amount to an offence against the society at large or, more particularly, against the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community. Apart from that, it appears that, there were some long standing disputes between two parties and said disputes were amicably settled, taking into consideration the larger interest of the villagers in that area. 5. Under these circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The application is disposed of. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J.) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)