1 CR.APP.1992/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1992 OF 2009. Sagar Digambar Dhawale, having his office at Alaknanda Complex, 2 floor, Adalat Road, Aurangabad-431 005. ...Applicant. Versus 1. Vijay Babu Rao Danej, having his residence at 77 Vissanji Nagar, Jalgaon. 2. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondents. ... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Balaji Yenge, Mr.Subhodh Desai, and Mr.Nimish Kothare Advocates, for the applicant. Mr.Hemantkumar Pawar Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for respondent No.2. ... 2 CR.APP.1992/2009. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 24th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard. The respondent No.1/complainant is present in person. 2. This is an application seeking quashing of a Criminal Complaint No.86/2009 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon. 3. The applicant is an Officer representing the the accused No.2, a life insurance company. The respondent No.1 is the complainant in the criminal case. 4. The respondent No.1 had purchased a life insurance policy from the accused company. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the respondent No.1 and the company regarding the switching of the policy with some other product of the company. The respondent No.1 then filed the present Criminal Complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon making 19 other officers of the company 3 CR.APP.1992/2009. accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, thereafter, issued process against them. 5. During the pendency of this case, the parties have arrived at compromise and all disputes between them were amicably settled. The respondent No.1/ complainant then made an affidavit stating that a compromise was arrived at and he would not continue with the criminal case. An application to that effect was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon on 19th June, 2009. The learned Magistrate passed following order on that application. “The complainant and his counsel are present. Summons issued against accused persons returned un-executed. The complainant does not want to proceed further with the case. Therefore, this application is hereby allowed”. 6. With this order, the criminal case stood dismissed. However, the present application was filed before this Court a few days prior to the recording of compromise and dismissal of the criminal case. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant rightly pressed the application for quashing of the complaint. He conceded that, although, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had allowed the respondent No.1's application and 4 CR.APP.1992/2009. dismissed the complaint, such order is questionable because some of the offences alleged against the accused are not compoundable. He, therefore, requested the Court to quash the complaint. He further mentioned that the dispute between the parties was purely personal in nature. The respondent No.1-complainant had grievance about the event that took place between him and the agent of the company. This was in respect of certain life insurance policy purchased by the respondent. He also mentioned that the dispute did not touch any public policy and so if the parties record their compromise, even though some of the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the proceeding deserves to be quashed. 7. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, placed reliance on two Supreme Court Judgments. They are as under: "i) Manoj Sharma V/s State & others reported in 2009 SAR (Criminal) 57." "ii) Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab (un reported) Case No.Appeal (crl) 555 of 2008, Date of judgment: 26/03/2008." 5 CR.APP.1992/2009. 8. In both these judgments the Supreme Court considered the question, as to whether the High Court should exercise it's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash criminal proceedings, where non-compoundable offences are alleged, on the ground that the case was compromised between the parties. 9. Following paragraph of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of "Manoj Sharma V/s State & ors."(supra) would explain the legal position on this question. "Para 23. There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decision of this Court, preferably by a larger bench ( so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, 6 CR.APP.1992/2009. otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot." 10. Following paragraph of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of "Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab" (supra) would also further explain the legal position on this question. "Para (5)-It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 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 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 and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. 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 7 CR.APP.1992/2009. 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. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S.Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed." 11. The facts of this case which are explained above and the consideration between the parties for arriving at compromise being personal, I think, this is a fit case where discretion available to this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be used. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) & (c). . Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.