vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1184 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1184 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1184 OF 2008 Kabir Nirmal Bhogilal ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Amit Desai i/b Dimple Shah for Applicant Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for State Mr.Prakash Naik for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: MAY 2, 2008 MAY 2, 2008 MAY 2, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings registered by Mahim Police Station in criminal case No.160/PS/2006. The offences have been registered against the applicant under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 183, 184, 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner was driving his motor vehicle on 14.5.2005 when he dashed against Respondent No.2. Medical treatment was administered to Respondent No.2. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The medical certificate which is annexed and produced alongwith the chargesheet indicates that the injuries suffered by Respondent No.2 are lacerated wounds, abrasions and bruises. No serious injuries have been detected and, therefore, Respondent No.2 was discharged : 2 : from the hospital the same day. ON 16.5.2005, i.e. 2 days after the accident, Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the Senior Inspector of Mahim Police Station seeking to withdraw his complaint and stating that he had no grievance or claim against the petitioner. An affidavit was also filed by Respondent No.2 stating that the accident had occurred because of the two front tyres of the car bursting as a result of which the car went out of control. 2. The chargesheet was filed some time in 2006 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. However, in view of the fact that both the parties do not want to proceed with the litigation, the present application has been filed for quashing the proceeding. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no reason to keep the litigation pending between the applicant and Respondent No.2 as this is purely a private dispute and the parties have reached a compromise. The learned counsel emphasizes that unless there is a chance of their being any evidence to convict the applicant, it would be futile to keep the prosecution pending. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (Criminal Appeal No.555 of (Criminal Appeal No.555 of (Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2008) 2008) 2008) to buttress this argument. : 3 : 3. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Police Inspector attached to the Mahim Police Station wherein he has stated that the CA report shows that the petitioner had imbibed alcohol before the accident occurred. However, this CA report was not filed alongwith the chargesheet. Apart from that, the certificate issued by the casualty department of the hospital, while testing whether the applicant had consumed alcohol, indicates that the accident occurred in the evening while the injury report shows that the accident occurred in the morning. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be futile to continue with the present proceedings. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab (supra) has observed thus: 5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from the 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 compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the : 4 : 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 overburdened 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 law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed." 5. In this view of the matter, the proceedings in Criminal case No.160/PS/2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. The chargesheet and the FIR are also quashed and set aside. 6. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.