1 cr-apln-4132-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4132 OF 2010 Nimesh Babubhai Chotaliya ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Mr. Kuldeep S.Patil Adv. for applicant Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State Smt. Pushkarini Kulkarni Adv. for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned APP for the State and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-first informant. Respondent no.2 i.e. the first informant is present in Court. 2 The applicant is the original accused in FIR which is lodged by respondent no.2 i.e. CR No. 2 of 2009 of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The said FIR is under Sections 465, 471, 420B of IPC. The applicant is seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings 2 cr-apln-4132-10 relating thereto. 3 The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-first informant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the respondent no.2 has no objection to the FIR being quashed and the proceedings being quashed in respect of the said case. He has tendered affidavit to the above effect which is taken on record and marked `X ’ for identification. 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 3 cr-apln-4132-10 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. 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 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 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable 4 cr-apln-4132-10 settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 7 In the result, CR No. 2 of 2009 of N.M.Joshi Marg, Police Station, Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto, is quashed. 8 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]