1 cr-apln-3253-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLIN. NO. 3253 OF 2010 Mr. Xavier Joseph Kallupurakal ..Applicant Vs. Ms. Leena Ramchandra Gurav & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Prakash Naik Adv. for Applicant Smt. Pooja Kute Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 11, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. The applicant and respondent no.1- original complainant is present in person. 2 The respondent no.1 was married to applicant. Some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties which led to respondent no.1 filing of three FIRs with Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, i.e. CR No. 58 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 506-II of IPC, CR No. 121 of 2008 under Sections 323, 504 and 341 IPC and CR No.49 of 2009 under 2 cr-apln-3253-10 Sections 341, 506-II and 325 of IPC. The applicant is seeking quashing of these three C.Rs. 3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.1-complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and parties have tendered consent terms before the Magistrate in a proceeding filed by respondent no.1 under the Domestic Violence Act. She further states that as per the consent terms, Rs.25 lakhs was to be paid to the complainant. Out of the said amount, amount of Rs.10 lakhs has already been paid and balance amount of RS.15 lakhs is being paid today by Demand Drafts i.e. Demand Draft bearing No.304115 dated 16.8.2010 for Rs.9,00,000/- and Demand Draft bearing no. 304116 dated 16.8.2010 for Rs.6,00,000/-. Both the demand drafts are drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai Service Branch. She further submitted that as she has received the amount, as per the consent terms, she has no objection to the FIRs being quashed. 4 The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 further states that there is proceeding i.e. CC No.1191/SS/2009 under the Domestic Violence Act which is pending before the learned Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali which will be withdrawn by respondent no.1 on permanent custody of child Angelina nee Flossy being given to respondent no.1. The learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the 3 cr-apln-3253-10 applicant is not claiming custody of the child and in furture also he will not claim custody of the child. On this statement being made, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-complainant states that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, which are pending before the learned Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, also be quashed being CC No. 1191/SS/2009. 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 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 4 cr-apln-3253-10 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 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 aforesaid proceedings. Hence, C.R.Nos. 58 of 2008, 121 of 2008 and 49 of 2009 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai and CC No. 1191/SS/2009 under the Domestic Violence Act, are quashed. 9 Application disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 cr-apln-3253-10