14.cr appln 3-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2010 Devang Jaswant Parish & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr. R.A.Shaikh for the Applicants Ms. Shilpa Sanghrajkar i/b M/s. L.C. Total & Co for Respondent NO. 2 Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and the learned APP for the State. Father of respondent no. 2 who is constituted attorney of respondent no. 2 is present in person. 2 The applicant no. 1 was married to respondent no.2. Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between them. On account of this dispute, FIR came to be lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicants at Santacruz Police Station which was numbered as CR No. 402 of 2007. The said case is under Sections 498A, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506(2) 1 14.cr appln 3-10.doc read with 34 of IPC. The applicants are seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings relating thereto being C.C.No. 1197/PW/2008 which is pending before the learned Magistrate, 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai. 3 The learned advocate for respondent no.2 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the case be quashed. Father of Respondent no. 2 who is also her constituted attorney stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and his daughter, hence, the case be quashed. He has also filed affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 4 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 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 2 14.cr appln 3-10.doc 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 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 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale 3 14.cr appln 3-10.doc Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the affidavit tendered by father of respondent no. 2 in this Court, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 8 C.R. No. 402 of 2007 of Santacruz Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 1197/PW/2008 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is quashed. 9 As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26th September 2009, the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- has been deposited by applicant no. 1 on 14th July, 2010 in fixed deposit bearing no. EM/COM/C NO. 337635 in Union Bank of India, Khand Bazar Branch, Mumbai. The bank to give the said amount to respondent no. 2 or her constituted attorney along with the accrued interest. 10. Learned advocate for the applicants further states that 4 14.cr appln 3-10.doc some articles of respondent no. 2 are lying in the police station. Those articles may be handed over to respondent no. 2. Statement is accepted. 11. The applicants have been released on cash bail. The bail bond shall stand cancelled and the amount be returned back to the applicants. 12 Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 14.cr appln 3-10.doc 6