APL. 1066-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1066 OF 2011 Balu @ Balasaheb Arun Badekar & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents *** Mr. Balwant Patole i/b Subhash Hulyalkar, for the Applicants. Ms. R. M. Gadhavi, APP for the Respondent. Mr. V. M. Madane, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned APP appearing for the respondent State. This application is filed for quashing the FIR which is registered vide C.R. No. 354 of 2011 at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Section 387, 504, 506 read with S. 34 of the I. P. Code. 2. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit in reply in which he has stated that he has no objection if the APL. 1066-11 - 2 - said complaint is quashed. It is submitted that there was a dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 2 over the ancestral agricultural land. It is submitted that the said dispute has been amicably settled and in view of this settlement he does not wish to prosecute the applicants herein. 3. We had asked the learned APP to find out whether the consent given by respondent No.2 is genuine and whether any threat was given by the applicants herein to respondent No. 2. The learned APP has interviewed the respondent No.2 and she has submitted that respondent No.2 has reiterated whatever is stated in the affidavit in reply. 4. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of - Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969], in our view, there is no impediment for quashing the FIR since the dispute between the parties is of personal nature. The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer Clause (a). [A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]