MP 1 APL83_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2011 Paresh Mulji Koli ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2011 Chakorchandra Balkrishna Surve ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. R. J. Rathod i/b. Mr. Wasim Ansari for Applicant. Mrs. Shobana Shamin for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Nakhwa, APP for the State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2011 has been filed for quashing C.R. No. 12 of 2011 registered by Agripada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, Criminal Application No. 84 of 2011 is filed for quashing and setting aside a complaint arising out of C.R. No. 13 of 2011 registered by Agripada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 83 of 2011 is MP 2 APL83_11 respondent No. 2 in Criminal Application No. 84 of 2011. Whereas, applicant in Criminal Application No. 84 of 2011 is respondent No. 3 in Criminal Application No. 83 of 2011. Both the crimes are arising out of the same incident. The applicants in both the applications are original complainants. 3. It has been contended by both the applicants that the incident arose out of collapsing of a branch of tree on the tin-shed. However, it is contended that the parties have settled the dispute, and that, they do not intend to continue with the prosecution against each other. 4. It can clearly be seen from the allegations made in both the complaints that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and there is no element of public law involved in the matter. Since the parties do not intend to prosecute the cases against each other, no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending other than burdening the already overburdening courts. I am of the view that the applications need to be allowed 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. 5. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B. R. GAVAI, J)