1 WP1513_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2011 Siddra Sohel Vora ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Shavez Mukri for the Petitioner. Ms Narpali Afsha for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide Crime No. 430 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 346, 365, 366 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is contended that the petitioner-complainant had lodged an F.I.R. against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 alleging that though the complainant was married to one Sohel Vora, the accused had kidnapped the complainant with an intention of performing the second marriage. It is submitted that the marriage between the complainant and the said Sohel was an intercaste marriage, and therefore, there was an opposition from the family of the said Sohel, and as such, the said complaint came to be filed. However, it is submitted that now the family of the 2 WP1513_11 complainant’s husband has accepted the said marriage. In this background, the petitioner-complainant does not wish to proceed with the complaint. The Investigating Officer has also filed “C” Summary Report. A copy of the same is placed on record. 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The consent terms reiterating settlement between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 is also filed. 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 Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 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. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J)