1 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4499 OF 2010 Mohammed Altaf Mirza and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. S.P.Kalyankar Adv. for applicant Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State .... WITH CRI. APPLN.NO. 4500 OF 2010 Shri. Attiulla alias Sonu Abdul Hasan Mirza ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. A.H.H. Ponda Adv. for Applicant Smt. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2010 2 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the State. Both the complainants and injured persons are present in Court. 2 In Cri. Application No. 4499 of 2010, the applicants are seeking quashing of CR No. 123 of 2010 of Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Kurla (W) Mumbai which is registered against them on a complaint by respondent no.2-Attiulla. In the said case respondent no.2 is the only injured person. The said case is under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. 3 In Cri. Application No. 4500 of 2010 the applicant is seeking quashing of CR No. 119 of 2010 of Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Kurla (W), Mumbai which has been registered against him by respondent no.2. The said case is under Section 326 of IPC. The complainant is respondent no. 2-Altaf who is the only injured person. 4 Both these cases are cross-cases and the complainant and accused in both the cases are closely related. Both the original complainants state that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in order to have amicable relations and peace between the parties, both the FIRs and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. The complainants have tendered affidavits to that effect which are taken 3 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 on record marked `X' for identification. 5 The learned advocates for the applicants tendered medical certificates of the injured which are taken on record and marked `X-1 colly." for identification. I have perused the medical certificates of the injured person in CR No. 119 of 2010 which is under Section 326 of IPC. In Criminal Application No. 4500 of 2010 the case of the respondent no.2 who is the complainant is that he was assaulted by the applicant therein with a stump on head. The injury certificate shows CLW on the left parietal region admeasuring 6 cm. x 1 cm. The CT scan of the brain and the medical certificate does not show any underlying fracture. It is an admitted fact that he was not in hospital for more than three days. Looking to these facts, it cannot be said that offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out. 6 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 4 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 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". 7 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. 8 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court 5 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. It was pointed out that in the below mentioned two cases, FIR under Section 307 and the proceedings came to be quashed. In Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All .M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009, Santosh Kaluram Landge & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, this Court [ Coram : Mr. B.R. Gavai, J] by order dated 4th March 2010, quashed the FIR and proceedings in a case under Section 307 of IPC. 9 The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the FIRs in both the cases should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 10 In the result, C.R. Nos. 123 of 2010 and CR No. 119 of 2010 both pertaining to Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 6 cr-apln-4499-4500-10 11 Applications disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]