1 cr-apln-3352-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 3352 OF 2010 Mr.Hitesh Bhaskar Sanghvi ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Abad H.H.Ponda Adv. for applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr.Indra Redkar for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-first informant and the learned APP for respondent no.1-State. 2 The applicant is the original accused in CC No.108/PS/2010 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Bhoiwada, Mumbai. The said case pertains to CR No.350 of 2008 of Dadar Police Station. The said case is under Sections 279 and 237 of IPC and Section 134(A) and 134(B) of Bombay Motor Vehicles Act. 2 cr-apln-3352-10 The applicant is seeking quashing of the said proceedings. The accused and respondent no.2 are present before this Court. 3 The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-first informant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and respondent no.2 has no objection to the FIR being quashed and the proceedings being closed in respect of the said case. Affidavit of respondent no.2 to the above effect is taken on record and marked X for identification. 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 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 3 cr-apln-3352-10 compromise. 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 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. 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 4 cr-apln-3352-10 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 In the result, C.R.No. 350 of 2008 of Dadar Police Station, Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto i.e. CC No. 108/PS/2010 pending before the 5th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai is quashed. 8 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]