1 cr­wp­2802­2803­10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2802 OF 2010 Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave & ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr. ..Respondents --- Mr. V.V.Purwant Adv. for petitioners Smt.M.M.Deshmukh APP for State --- WITH CRI. W.P.NO. 2803 OF 2010 Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Birappa Maryyapa Galave & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Shrikant Chavan Adv.for petitioners Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, 2 cr­wp­2802­2803­10.doc learned advocates for the complainants and the learned APP for the State. 2 The petitioners in W.P.No. 2802 of 2010 have prayed for quashing of CR No.32 of 2006, wherein they are accused. CR No.32 of 2006 came to be registered on FIR by respondent no.1 Tayappa Mhalappa Tone. It is now numbered as RCC No. 164 of 2006 and is pending before the J.M.F.C. Jath. 3 The petitioners in W.P.No.2803 of 2010 have prayed for quashing of CR No.31 of 2006 wherein they are accused. The said CR is registered on FIR by respondent no.1 in this W.P. i.e. Birappa Naryyappa Galve. 4 Both these C.Rs. Pertain to Umadi Police Station, Dist. Sangli. They are cross cases. CR No. 32 of 2006 is under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 337 of IPC. In the said case, Namdeo Tone, Jagannath Tone, Ramesh Tone, Birappa Dhage and Dilip Tone are the injured persons. The case arising out of CR No.31 of 2006 is under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 337, 324, 323, and 427 of IPC. In the said case, Mahadev Galve, Madappa Galve, Dadasaheb Galve, Birappa Galve, Jijabai Galve, Shiwaji Galave and Shirwanta Galve are the injured persons. The complainants in both cases as well as all the injured persons in both the cases are present before the Court. 3 cr­wp­2802­2803­10.doc 5 The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the accused and the complainants and they do not wish to proceed any further with the cases. Affidavits of complainant and injured persons have been filed stating therein that the disputes are amicably settled and the cases may be quashed. 6 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the 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". 7 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977 4 cr­wp­2802­2803­10.doc 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 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIRs and the proceedings relating thereto. 9 C.R.Nos. 31 and 2006 and 32 of 2006 of Umadi Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 10 Petitions disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]