1 cr-apln-3902-3903-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLIN. NO. 3902 OF 2010 WITH CRI.APPLN. NO. 3903 OF 2010 Jaikishan Bhagwandas Advani and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Chetan Akerkar Adv. for Applicants Mr. V.B.Konde-Dehsmukh APP for State in Cri.Appln.No. 3902 of 2010 Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State in Cri. Appln.No. 3903 of 2010 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. Complainant and accused are present in person. 2 The applicant no.1 in Cri. Application No. 3902 of 2010 and 3903 of 2010 are the same. In Application No. 3902 of 2010 he is seeking quashing of FIR i.e. CR No. 122 of 2009 lodged against him and his wife and in Application No. 3903 of 2010 he is seeking quashing of 2 cr-apln-3902-3903-10 FIR i.e. CR No. 115 of 2009 lodged by him against respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 in both the applications is also the same. The applicant in Cri. Application No. 3903 of 2010 is the complainant in CR No. 115 of 2009 wherein respondent no.2 is the sole accused. The said case is under Sections 326, 452, 506-II of IPC. The respondent no.2 in Cri. Application No. 3902 of 2010 is the complainant in CR No. 122 of 2009 wherein both the applicants in Application No. 3902 of 2010 are the accused. The said case is under Sections 452, 326, 506-II of IPC. Both the cases pertain to Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai and they are cross-complaints lodged in respect of the incident which occurred on 25.3.2009 in the house of the applicant-Jaikishan Advani. 3 Brief facts are that the applicant no.2 in Cri. Application No. 3902 of 2010 was married to respondent no.2. Some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and thereafter, they obtained divorce by mutual consent. However, as far as children of applicant no.2 and respondent no.2 were concerned, respondent no.2 was granted visiting rights by the Court. There appeared to be some dispute in relation to the visiting rights and this incident has arisen on account of that dispute. Both the applicants as well as respondent no.2 have stated that they have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves and they have 3 cr-apln-3902-3903-10 prayed that both these cases be quashed. 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 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 4 cr-apln-3902-3903-10 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 proceedings. 8 C.R.No. 115 of 2009 and 122 of 2009 of Santacruz Police Station Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 9 Applications are disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]