ladda 1 appln-167-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2011 Mrs Saba Riyaz Ansari ..Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 173 of 2011 Mr Yakub Nuruddin Hafiz ..Applicant. versus Mrs Saba Riyaz Ansari and Anr .. Respondents. Shri A.N. Pathan Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 167 of 2011. Ms Sabina Shetty, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No.173 of 2011. Shri Y. M. Nakhwa, A.P.P.for the State in both applications. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 10th March, 2011 ladda 2 appln-167-11 P.C. :- 1. Heard respective Counsel in both the criminal applications which are filed for quashing of the respective criminal complaints pending before the same Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. In Criminal Application No. 167 of 2011, present applicant is facing the charge for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. in case No.2286/PW/2009. In the said case complainant is one Dr Yakub Nuruddin Hafiz, who is the applicant accused in another Criminal Application No. 173 of 2011. 2. In another Application No.173 of 2011 accused Yakub is facing charge punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 817/PS/09 pending before the same M. M. Railway Mobile Court, Andheri. 3. Apparently, the charges respectively lodged against the respective applicants are non-compoundable either without or with permission of the concerned Court in view of provisions of section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, in order to make the ends of justice prayer is made for quashing of both the criminal complaints as both the respective ladda 3 appln-167-11 applicants, who are counter complainants, have settled their disputes. Respective affidavits giving consent for quashing of the complaints are filed in both the Criminal Applications. 4. Now, the question is, under the above circumstances though these are the criminal proceedings and in which the State is complainant, whether such type of matters can be put to rest in order to not to further waste the time of the litigating parties and also of the State machinery when apparently the grievances levelled against each other are of personal nature causing personal injury and apparently nothing to do with the public at large. 5. During the arguments, attention of this Court is drawn towards the ratio propounded in various authorities including one reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3832 (Dr Shaheen w/o Shaikh Imran and others and also the authority of the Full Bench in the case Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra and anr reported in 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 584. By taking shelter of the ratios of these authorities, it is submitted that powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code ladda 4 appln-167-11 and it is further submitted that powers include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any courts subordinate to it. 6. It is further submitted that such powers can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. In the present matter, in order to secure the ends of justice such powers can be exercised and in that view of the matter both the present applications are allowed and consequently the respective criminal cases Nos. 2286/PW/09 and CC 817/PS/2009 are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, both the Criminal Applications are disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)