1 apl.100.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 100 of 2011 Mohd. Rafiq Rauf Sayyed ...Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajendra Rathod for the applicant. Mr. D.R. More-APP for the State. Ms. Afsha Narpoli i/b. Mr. Shadad Khan for respondent no. 2. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 15th June, 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 of FIR registered as C.R. No. 14/2011 with Nagpada Police station for the offence punishable under Section 324,504 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The present petition is filed by the Complainant. The Complainant had lodged the complaint that the accused persons had assaulted him. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner and the respondent-accused are residing in the same locality and they have amicably settled their dispute and have decided to 2 apl.100.11.sxw withdraw all the complaints and allegations against each other. 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Consent Terms are also filed on record. 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/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. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)