-: 1 :- wp-3546/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3546 OF 2011 Sudhir Narayan Sagale and 36 others. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. M. S. Karnik with Ms. Leena Patil for the applicants. Mr. D. R. More, APP for R-1. Mr. Nilesh Patil for R-2. WRIT PETITION NO. 3571 OF 2011 Sanjay Vitthal Sagale and 23 others. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Nilesh Patil for the Applicants. Mr. D. R. More, APP for R-1. Mr. M. S. Karnik with Ms. Leena Patil for R-2. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Writ Petition No.3546 of 2011 is filed for quashing the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.7 of 2010 arising out srp -: 2 :- wp-3546/11 of C.R. No. 35 of 2009 filed at the instance of Sanjay Vitthal Sagale. Writ Petition No.3571 of 2011 is filed for quashing the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.23 of 2010 arising out of C.R. No. 36 of 2009 initiated at the instance of respondent no.2 Nivrutti Sakharam Sagale. Respondent no.2 in W.P. No. 3571 of 2011 is petitioner no.3 in Writ Petition No.3546 of 2011. Respondent no.2 in W.P. No. 3546 of 2011 is Petitioner No.1 in W.P. No. 3571 of 2011. 3. Both the above-mentioned C.Rs., are registered at the instance of respondent no.2 in each of the writ petitions for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 504 of IPC. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are related enter-se and both the complaints arise out of one and the same incident that took place on 28/8/2009. 4. In view of the fact that the parties are related to each other, they have decided to settle the whole dispute amicably and accordingly with the support of elderly persons in village they have settled the disputes through Tanta Mukti Sammittee in the village. The statements of the concerned persons have been recorded. -: 3 :- wp-3546/11 5. Mr. Sanjay Vitthal Sagale Respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.3546 of 2011, who is complainant in C.R.No.35 of 2009 has filed affidavit. He has re-affirmed and re-iterated that dispute between the parties has been settled in Tanta Mukti Sammittee of Village and it was decided to withdraw the respective complaints filed by respondent no.2 in each of the writ petitions. In paragraph no.3 he has stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection if the proceedings arising out of C.R.No.35 of 2009 are quashed. Mr. Sanjay Vitthal Sagale-Respondent no.2 is present in the Court. Upon query, he has stated that he has gone through the affidavit and understood the contents of the same. He submitted that he wants to settle the mater amicably and does not want to proceed with the complaint filed by him. 6. Respondent no.2 in W.P.No.3571 of 2011, i.e. Nivrutti Sagale has also filed similar affidavit stating that dispute between the parties is settled and he does not want to proceed with the complaint. C.R. No. 36 of 2009 was registered at his instance. He is present in the Court. Upon query made to him, -: 4 :- wp-3546/11 he has stated that since dispute between the parties is settled, he does not want to proceed with the complaint he had filed and wants to withdraw the same. 7. Thus, it can be seen that the dispute between the parties, which had led to filing of the criminal cases against each other, has been amicably settled. Perusal of those complaints reveals that the allegations made therein are totally personal in nature and there is no element of public law involved in the alleged crimes. 8. 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 aforesaid criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice both the criminal proceedings deserve 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 disputes. -: 5 :- wp-3546/11 9. In the circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b)(a) of both the petitions, however, subject to costs quantified at Rs.3,000/- in each of the petitions. The costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the petitioners in each of the petitions by drawing demand draft in the name of Raigad District Police Welfare Fund, Raigad. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of three weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matters. (RANJIT MORE, J.)