SSK/902 1 apl 957.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 957 OF 2011 Pradeep Gherwarchand Jogani ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Rishi Bhuta, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak More, APP for the State. Mr.Sanjay Gangadhar Yadav, respondent no.2 in person. Mr. Jaywant N. Damble, IO, PSI, Tardeo Police Station, present. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 17th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel of the applicant and respondent no.2 in person. 2. The application is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting-aside the proceedings of CC No.547/PS/2011. The FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of respondent no.2 under the provisions of Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC against the applicant. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case is pending before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Girgaum, Mumbai.. The matter is now amicably settled between the applicant, respondent no.2 and his wife. Respondent no.2 and his wife have filed a joint declaration dated 27th April, 2011 which is annexed at Exhibit “N. In this declaration, SSK/902 2 apl 957.11 respondent no.2 has stated that on the night of 30th March, 2011 when he was travelling along with his wife on the scooter, they met with an accident with Hyundai Getz driven by the applicant and sustained injuries. They were then admitted in the hospital and have undergone treatment. The applicant has borne the entire costs of respondent no.2 as well as his wife’s treatment. Respondent no.2’s wife has also stated that whatever stated by respondent no.2 is true and correct. They have further stated that they have no claim against the applicant and that the incident, in question, in fact was an accident and they are not desirous of pressing any claim against the applicant. They have also stated that they are desirous of compounding the said matter by not prosecuting the same. The applicant as well as respondent no.2 are present before the Court. Respondent no.2 has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the joint declaration. He stated that the matter is now settled between the applicant, himself and his wife and he does not want to proceed with the complaint. He has no objection if the said proceedings are quashed. The concerned IO is also present before the Court. He has identified respondent no.2. 3. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi verses State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 held that in the event of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498 can be quashed, even though, the offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the SSK/902 3 apl 957.11 Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(5) LJ.Soft 46. 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially , in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be SSK/902 4 apl 957.11 served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 5. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)