1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2383 OF 2009 Shri Baliram Shivnar Patil & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.G. Sadavarte for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.Kharge, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2388 OF 2009 Smt.Daya Madan Patil & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.G. Sadavarte for the petitioners. Mr.J.P.Kharge, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajendra Sorankar i/b. Mr.Ganesh Gole for resp. nos.2,3 & 4. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MAY 03, 2010. P.C.: Both these petitions arise out of the same incident for which two counter cases are filed and hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2 2. In Criminal Writ Petition no.2383 of 2009, the petitioner is an accused in a case filed at the instance of the respondent no.5. The son of the petitioner, viz., Kalpesh Baliram Patil and daughter of the respondent no.5 had committed suicide on the same day and, therefore, a case came to be filed against the present petitioner for abetment to suicide committed by the daughter of the respondent no.5. 3. In Criminal Writ Petition no.2388 of 2009, the petitioner is accused in the complaint filed at the instance of the respondent no.2, who is the the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2383 of 2009. The allegation is that the petitioner in the present petition has abetted the suicide committed by the son of the respondent no.2. It appears that the son and daughter of the petitioner in both the petitions were victims of the unfortunate circumstances and had committed suicide. Accordingly, cross complaints came to be filed against each other alleging their counterparts to be the cause for suicide of their respective children. 4. However, it appears that subsequently, the parties have sat together and found that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping both the criminal cases pending. It appears that having realised that their children have committed suicide as they were in love with each other, the parties 3 have decided to put an end to the dispute between them. 5. Since the parties have amicably decided to settle their disputes, I do not find that any purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. I, therefore, find that this is a fit case where this Court should give an end to the criminal cases filed by both the parties against each other. 6. The rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) in both the petitions. B. R. GAVAI, J.