B.R. Gavai, J.:— Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. Both these Criminal Applications are heard and disposed of together since they arise out of the same incident for which two counter cases have been filed.
3. With respect to an incident which had taken place on 7.6.1991 on account of removal of certain construction in an area known as “Parate Compound”, Nagpur, two crimes were registered. Crime No. 252 of 1991 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 294, 448, 324, 336 and 427 of the Penal Code, 1860 at the instance of applicant no. 1 in Criminal Application No. 824 of 2014, wherein applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 were the accused. Another F.I.R. came to be registered at the instance of applicant no. 1 in Criminal Application No. 825 of 2014 bearing Crime No. 253 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294, 506(b), 427 r/w. 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 wherein applicant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were accused. After the charge sheets were filed, the proceedings byway of Criminal Case Nos. 144 of 1991 and 145 of 1991 were instituted before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.
4. Though the incident is of the year 1991, much progress has not been done in the matter. However, with passage of time, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The parties are residents of the neighbouring localities.
5. In order to maintain peace and harmony, the parties have decided to give an end to the dispute between them and also to give an end to the criminal proceedings.
6. Shri Hruday Kumar Babulal Parate and Shri Madanlal Babulal Parate, who are applicant nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Application No. 824 of 2014 and applicant nos. 4 and 3 respectively in Criminal Application No. 825 of 2014, Shri Pravin s/o Romadhari Dubey who is applicant no. 3 in Criminal Application No. 824 of 2014 and Shri Dipesh Madanlal Parate, who is applicant no. 6 in Criminal Application No. 825 of 2014 are personally present in the Court.
7. Applicant no. 4 in Criminal Application No. 824 of 2014 and applicant no. 5 in Criminal Application No. 825 of 2014 are represented by their respective Counsel.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has laid down various guidelines to be followed by this Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal proceedings. One of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court is that normally this Court would not entertain an application for quashing the proceedings wherein an element of public law is involved. In the present case, perusal of the record would reveal that the proceedings came to be initiated against each other out of a dispute which is purely private and where no element of public law is involved. Another guideline laid down is that if there is no possibility of trial being culminated into conviction, this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give an end to the criminal proceedings. Since the parties have agreed to given an end to the dispute amongst themselves, there is not even a remote possibility of trial ending into conviction. We, therefore, find that it would be in the interest of justice to accept the settlement between the parties and to give an end to the criminal proceedings so that the parties are in a position to maintain peace and harmony in the area where they reside.
9. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) in both the Criminal Applications. No order as to costs.