14.cr wp 1754-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2010 Vikas Madanlal Arora @ Vikas Madanmohan Arora @ Viekas Aurora .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ano. .. Respondents Mr. J.S.Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State Mr. Deepak Thakre for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is present in person. 2. The petitioner original accused has preferred this application for quashing of FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 which is registered as C.R. No. I-275 of 2009 of Manpada Police Station. It is for the offence punishable under Sections 376,420, 506 and 504 of IPC. It pertains to Sessions Case No. 218 of 2009 and it is pending before the Sessions Court, Kalyan 1 14.cr wp 1754-10.doc 3. Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 original complainant states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and hence, proceedings be quashed. Respondent no. 2 who is present in the court states that after she lodged the FIR, she and the applicant got married on 12th November, 2009. She has stated that at present she is living a happy married life with the petitioner and she does not want to continue with the prosecution in the said case. Respondent no. 2 further stated that if the petitioner is convicted and goes to jail, her life will be ruined and she will be on the streets. Hence, she prayed that the complaint be quashed. She has also tendered affidavit to the above effect which is taken on record. 4. According to respondent no. 2, incident of rape is occurred from the year 2003 to 2009. Admittedly, even in the year 2003, she was well over 16 years of age. In fact,in the year 2003, she was around 27-28 years old. From the charge sheet, it appears that it was a case of consent. 5. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the 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 2 14.cr wp 1754-10.doc 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 over burdened 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". 6 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. 3 14.cr wp 1754-10.doc 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the facts of this case, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. Accordingly, C.R. No. I-275 of 2009 of Manpada Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 218 of 2009 which is pending before the learned Sessions Court, Kalyan is quashed. 8. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 14.cr wp 1754-10.doc 5