1 cr-apln-4108-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLIN. NO. 4108 OF 2010 Kamlesh Harish Kochra ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Deepak Paikrao Adv. for Applicant Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr. Ramprakash Pandey Adv. for Respondent no.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant is present before this Court. 2 The applicant is married to respondent no.2. FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against the applicant and his family members. 2 cr-apln-4108-10 The said FIR was numbered as CR No. 192 of 2008 of Tilaknagar Police Station and case arising out of the said CR, i.e. CC No.198/PW/2009 is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court at Vikhroli. 3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.2-wife has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and in order to maintain amicable relations and peace among all family members, the FIR and proceedings relating thereto, be quashed. He states that consent terms have been filed by the parties in an application for Divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court. In the said consent terms, the respondent no.2-wife has agreed to withdraw all allegations against the applicant. 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 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-apln-4108-10 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". 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 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 4 cr-apln-4108-10 proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 8 Accordingly, C.R.No.192 of 2008 of Tilaknagar Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai is quashed. 9 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]