1 cr-apln-2113-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLIN. NO. 2113 OF 2010 Mr. Devendra Ramchandra Goyal and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Sandesh B.Patil Adv. for Applicants Mr. Ajay Basutkar Adv for Respondent no.2. Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. 2 The applicants are seeking quashing of CR No. I-42 of 2010 2 cr-apln-2113-10 of Mira Road Police Station. The said case is under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled and in order to maintain amicable relations and peace among them, the FIR be quashed. 4 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 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". 3 cr-apln-2113-10 5 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 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. 6 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 7 C.R.No. I-42 of 2010 of Mira Road Police Station and proceeding relating thereto, is quashed. 8 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]