19.appln3426-10 RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3426 OF 2010 Rajesh Ganpat Kajrolkar & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Ms. Sonal V. Parab for the Applicants Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State Mr. M.K. Kocharekar for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Sonal Parab, learned Advocate for the applicant / original accused and Mr. Kocharekar, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 - original complainant and learned APP for the State. Both the applicants and respondent no. 2 are present before the Court. 2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint bearing C.C. NO. 2900018/SW/2009 against the applicants. The said case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bhoiwada, Mumbai. The complaint is for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120(B) of 1 19.appln3426-10 the IPC. The learned Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, C.R. No.5 of 2009 came to be registered against the applicants at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The applicants are seeking quashing of the said C.R. No. 5 of 2009 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station. 3. On instructions, the learned APP states that the police would not be filing charge sheet against the applicants and in fact, the police are filing C Summary in the matter. Learned APP has produced the report of the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station dated 06.08.2010 to the above effect which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The learned APP stated that in view of the fact that the investigating agency is filing an application for 'C' Summary before the Magistrate, there is no objection by the prosecution for quashing the case. 4. The very fact that no charge sheet will be filed in the matter shows that sufficient material has not been gathered during investigation to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. 5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the niece of applicant no. 1 Rajesh Kajrolkar. Thus, it appears 2 19.appln3426-10 that the matter arises mainly out of family dispute between niece and her uncle. The complainant - Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit before this Court wherein she has stated that she has amicably settled the matter with the accused persons. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that she expressly records her no objection to quash and set aside the proceedings relating to C.C. No. 2900018/SW/2009 which was later on converted into C.R. No. 5 of 2009 of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station. 6. The learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 states on instructions from respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court that on account of settlement between the parties and in order to maintain amicable relations between uncle and niece and other family members, C.R. No. 5 of 2009 may be quashed. 7. In a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is observed as follows: "We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the 3 19.appln3426-10 accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise...... We need to emphasize 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 ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 8. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977 Cr. L. J. 1125 the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or 4 19.appln3426-10 that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 9. Thus, in view of the above decisions and keeping in mind the fact that the investigation reveals that no case is made out against the accused persons and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. In the result, proceedings relating to C.C. No. 2900018/SW/2009 which was later on converted into C.R. No. 5 of 2009 of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station against the applicants are quashed. 10. Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 19.appln3426-10 6