( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3601 OF 2010 Syed Khaled s/o. Syed Alam & anr. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4299 OF 2010 Syed Khaled s/o. Syed Alam & Ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4297 OF 2010 Shaikh Rafiq Sk. Ali Mohammad & Ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Thombare, Advocate for the applicants in Cr. Application Nos. 3601 of 2010 & 4299 of 2010 and for respondent No. 2 in Cr. Application No. 4297 of 2010. Mr. S.B. Solanke, Advocate for the applicants in Cr. Application No. 4297 of 2010. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 19.10.2010 ( 2 ) P.C. :- 1. By consent the learned advocates appearing in the rival applications and that of the learned A.P.P., all the three applications are being decided together at the stage of admission. 2. Criminal Application No. 3601 of 2010 is filed by two applicants for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Criminal Application No. 4299 of 2010 is filed by five applicants for quashing of the F.I.R. registered with Crime No. 110 of 2010 for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Criminal Application No. 4297 of 2010 is filed by the rival group of the applicants seeking quashing of counter F.I.R. registered with Rural Police Station at Beed, for similar kind of offences. 3. The learned advocates representing the rival groups of the applicants make a statement that the dispute has been settled between the two rival groups and that they do not ( 3 ) wish to proceed with the complaints. The learned advocates appearing for the applicants in both the applications under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. further make statement that due to compounding of the offences, the prosecution may not be successful in any event and it would amount to abuse of process of Court. 4. Applicants Syed Khaled and Syed Khuddus seek anticipatory bail for the reason that they are involved in the crime without there being substratum to infer their complicity. 5. The incident occurred on 6th August, 2010 at about 11.00 a.m. at a place of road side hotel/Dhaba. It appears that Waiter of the hotel used some insulting language when Syed Khaled asked him as to why the order placed for lunch was being delayed. There was quarrel between the two groups. It appears that there was free fight between them and members of both the parties were injured. 6. Considering the nature of the injuries appearing from the Medico-legal Certificate, it is amply clear that ( 4 ) neither of the injured has received any grievous hurt. It is but natural that the offences will not come within the ambit of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of either of the F.I.R. When the matter is settled outside the Court and the compounding is permissible with the leave of the Court, it would be appropriate to quash both the F.I.Rs. in as much as it would just amount to abuse of process of law, if further investigation is held and the applicants are put on trial which are likely to be fizzled out and will unnecessarily amount to wastage of judicial time. In this view of the matter, both the applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are allowed. The rival F.I.Rs. are quashed as prayed for. The application for anticipatory bail which is incidental, is also allowed in terms of ad-interim order dated 8th September, 2010. 7. The applications are accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/cria3601.10