- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 519 OF 2010 Vijay Suryakant More & Ors .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. M. Majonkar i/b Arun S. Tiwari, for the Applicants. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent-No.1. Mr. C. Pendse i/b Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. By way of present Applicant, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. 3 of 2010 registered with Juhu Police Station. 2. The FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.1 stating therein that on account of altercations the applicants started abusing and assaulting the complainant. Accordingly, FIR under Section 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. - 2 - Code came to be registered against the applicants. 3. It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. An affidavit-in- reply has been filed by respondent No.2 complainant. It is submitted that the applicants are residing in the area where the complainant’s uncle resides and as such, the complainant is frequently required to visit the said place. The consent terms have also been filed along with the Criminal application. 4. The parties are personally present in the Court and they reiterate about the amicable settlement between them. 5. The Apex Court in the case of – Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582] has observed thus- “We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on - 3 - ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law.” . The Apex Court in an identical case in the case of – Jagdish Chanana & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [ 2008 All MR (Cri) 1299 (S.C.) ]has quashed the proceedings in view of the amicable settlement. 6. It can clearly be seen that the dispute is purely of personal nature and no element of public policy involved in the present case. The parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the case. As such, I find that no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal case pending. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Sd/- [B. R. GAVAI, J.]