AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.873 OF 2009 Messrs Crescendo Associates & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. H.H. Ponda i/b M/s. D'Lima & Associates for the petitioners. Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Mahesh Londe i/b Sanjay Udeshi for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 27TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners and respondent 3 are accused in First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) No.91 of 2009 registered at Powai Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. We have heard Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State and AJN 2 Mr. Londe, learned counsel for respondent 2, who had filed the complaint. Learned counsel state that the parties have amicably settled the disputes involved in this complaint. They have filed in this court consent terms duly signed by the advocate for the petitioners and authorized signatory of petitioner 1 and respondent 2. Learned counsel for respondent 2 has identified the signature of respondent 2. Learned counsel state that in view of the settlement, FIR No.91 of 2009 registered at the Powai Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, be quashed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the consent terms, we are satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The consent terms are therefore, taken on record and marked “X”. 4. In Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors., 2009 All MR (Cri.) 267 (SC), the Supreme Court has reiterated that once the complainant decides not to pursue the complaint further, the High Court could, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal AJN 3 Procedure (for short, “the Code”) or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quash the FIR. We may quote the relevant paragraph. “8. In our view, the High Court' s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case.” 5. We may also refer to the Full Bench decision of this court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra & Ashwini Abasaheb Honmande, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 856. While considering AJN 4 the scope of Section 482 of the Code in the matters of quashing of the FIR, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that under Section 482 of the Code, the Court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if the initiation/continuation of such proceeding amounts to `abuse of process’ of court or where quashing of the proceeding would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The Full Bench further observed that while passing an order quashing FIR or criminal proceedings, as the case may be, it may be appropriate for the court to examine the impact of such an order upon the system of administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. The Full Bench clarified that this is not a determinative factor, but only a relevant consideration. The Full Bench further clarified that powers under Section 482 of the Code are not limited or affected by Section 320 of the Code. 6. We have examined the matter in the light of the above judgments. The complaint in question involves purely a private dispute. If it is settled, it will not have any adverse impact on the system of administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in exercise of our powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint can be quashed and AJN 5 is quashed accordingly. 7. The instant complaint was filed on 19/3/2009. A private dispute fortunately got settled after the complainant filed a criminal complaint. In such matters, the State does incur some expenses. It is not necessary for us to say anything more on this aspect because Mr. Ponda, learned counsel for the accused has graciously made a statement that the petitioners will deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of three weeks from today. We accept the statement. We appreciate this gesture. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]