JUDGMENT Z. A. HAQ, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for .quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Police Station, Tirora, Distt. Gondia vide C.R.No.166 of20 12 for offences punishable under Sections 304, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. The case of the applicants is that the applicants are the owners of agricultural land admeasuring 32 acres, situated at village Kacchekhani, which is used for agricultural purpose, and a Farm House is also built on the said land. According to the applicants, it is looked after by their servants. The applicants have stated that on 2nd of September, 2012 one Digambar Rahagandale trespassed into the land of the applicants and came in contact with electricity wire installed near the fencing of the land due to which he died. Deoraj Rahagandale, brother of deceased Digambar, lodged report at Police Station, Tirora pursuant to which C.R.No.166 of 2012 was registered. According to the applicants, FIR does not show that they had intention or knowledge to cause death of Digambar and as such the contents of the FIR does not, on the face value, make out any case for prosecution of the applicants under Sections 304,201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the necessary ingredients of the above referred provisions are not found in the complaint. 5. The Non-applicant no.1 State has filed the reply and has opposed the application filed by the applicants. According to the non-applicant no.1 - State, the investigating agency had arrested Ratiram Bharde and Narendra Bisen and their interrogation revealed that the electricity current was supplied through the electric wire fenced around the field at the instance of the owner of the field. The non-applicant no.1 - State has submitted that the applicants were aware that because of their act, death can occur. 6. The Non-applicant no.2 Deoraj (complainant) has filed the affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the applicants and himself and that he has been paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation by the applicants. He ha~ stated that he will not be prejudiced if the C.R.No.166 of 2012 is quashed. 7. 6. The Non-applicant no.2 Deoraj (complainant) has filed the affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the applicants and himself and that he has been paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation by the applicants. He ha~ stated that he will not be prejudiced if the C.R.No.166 of 2012 is quashed. 7. The complainant himself having filed the affidavit before this court and having stated about the amicable settlement, the continuation of the prosecution of the applicants pursuant to C.R.No. 166 of 2012 is not meaningful. Taking into consideration the fact that the present dispute does not involve any element of public law and applying the principles laid down in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 : [2008 ALL SCR 775], we find that This is an appropriate case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. 8. In view of the above, the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (g) of the application. The parties to bear their own costs. Application allowed.