1 cr-wp-2349-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2349 OF 2010 Zarina Safiq Shaikh ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. A.K.Jha Adv. i/b D.Dwivedi Adv. for Petitioner Mr. J.P.Kharge APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original first informant. The petitioner is present in Court. The petitioner is the wife of respondent no.3. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the family members of respondent no.2. The petitioner had filed FIR at Andheri Police Station, Mumbai against respondent nos.2 to 4 and four other accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of IPC. Her FIR is registered as C.R.No.64 of 2009. It is now numbered as Criminal Case No. 2876/PW/ 2 cr-wp-2349-10 2009. 2 Originally there were seven accused, however, after investigating the said case, the charge sheet came to be filed only against the respondent nos.2 to 4. The petitioner who is the original complainant seeks quashing of FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 2 The petitioner has stated that the dispute between her husband and his family has been amicably settled and she is now residing with her husband and his family since last one and half year. She has stated that as she is now happily residing with her husband and his family and in order to maintain amicable relations and peace among all family members, the FIR and proceedings be quashed. 3 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 3 cr-wp-2349-10 prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly ovberburdened 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. 4 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 4 cr-wp-2349-10 permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 5 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 6 In the result, C.R.No. 64 of 2009 of Andheri Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Case No. 2876/PW/2009, is quashed. 8 Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]