1 1378.11-wp-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1378 OF 2011 Chirag Pravinchandra Kothari and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1442 OF 2011 Himanshu Rasiklal Gandhi and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. J.S.Kinni for the petitioner (in W.P.No.1378/2011) and for respondent No.2 (in W.P.No.1442/2011) Parag Shah for the petitioner (in W.P.No.1442/2011) and for respondent No.2 (in W.P.No.1378/2011) Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 13th July 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By way of Criminal Writ Petition No.1378/2011, the petitioners therein pray for quashing of C.R.No.14/2010 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. By way of Criminal Writ Petition No.1442/2011, the petitioners therein are seeking to quash C.R.No.13/2010 registered with the said police station. The petitioner No.1 in Crim.Writ Petition No.1378/2011 is the complainant in Crim.Writ Petition No.1442/2011 and vice versa. 2 1378.11-wp-- 3. Mr.Nakhwa, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed these petitions on the ground that the chargesheets have already been filed. However, in my view, merely because the chargesheet is filed that cannot be a ground for this Court not to exercise its extra ordinary powers either under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The counter F.I.R.s have been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2- complainants with regard to the incident occurred on 9th January 2010 in which the complainants alleged assault on each other with respect to dispute regarding payment of electricity bill. 4. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have filed their consent terms. The affidavits of respondent No.2- complainants in both the petitions are taken on record wherein the complainants have reiterated the fact of settlement. 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 in both these petitions is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)