1 cr-apl-3772-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 3772 OF 2010 Aakash Deepak Shah ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Anil Lalla i/b M/s. Lalla and Lalla for applicant Mr. J.P.Kharge APP for State Mr. Mangal D.Chavan Respondent No.2 present in person Mr. Shankar Amarji Kasa Respondent No.3 present in person .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in person. 2 The applicant is the original accused in CC No. 681/PS/05 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court at Kurla Mumbai. The said case pertains to CR No. 253 of 2004 of Sion Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 279, 338 of IPC read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2 cr-apl-3772-10 3 The prosecution case is that the applicant was driving a motor cycle and gave a dash to Pravin who is the son of respondent no.2 Mangal Chavan. Due to the dash, Pravin sustained injuries. The applicant is now seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 681/PS/05 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai. 4 Respondent no.2-Mangal Chavan who is father of injured Pravin, is present in person. He states that the FIR and proceedings relating thereto, be quashed as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and parties have entered into a deed of settlement. Respondent no.3 who is the original complainant states that he does not wish to pursue the case and the same may be quashed. 5 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 3 cr-apl-3772-10 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". In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 6 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 4 cr-apl-3772-10 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. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 8 In the result, C.R.No. 253 of 2004 of Kurla Police Station, Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto i.e. CC No.681/PS/05 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai is quashed. 9 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]