1 cr-wp-2867-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. W.P. NO. 2867 OF 2010 Sudhir Kisondas Sethna ..Petitioner Vs. Sitaram Laxman Sutar & Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Satish Maneshinde i/b Smt. Snehal Khairnar Adv. for Petitioner Mr. Sunil Kanojia Adv. for respondent no.1 Smt.A.A.Mane APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. Respondent no.1-Sitaram Laxman Sutar is present in person. 2 The petitioner is seeking quashing of M.E.C.R.No. 6 of 2008 and proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 77/PS/2009 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, 2 cr-wp-2867-10 Mumbai. 3 The Complainant Sitaram Sutar is the brother of deceased Suhas Laxman Sutar. The petitioner is seeking quashing of CC No. 77/PS/2009 which is pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. The said case pertains to M.E.C.R. No. 6 of 2008 of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 304-A of IPC. 4 The case of the complainant is that on 5.6.2006 his brother Suhas Sutar along with his colleague Yuvraj were walking towards Babulnath. When they were on the foot-path near Nana Chowk, at that time, some concrete plaster from the 5th floor chajja of Ishwardas Mansion fell down, some of the pieces of cement plaster fell down on the head of brother of the complainant resulting in serious injuries to him. He was admitted in Nair hospital for treatment. However, he did not respond to the treatment and he expired. On account of accident, case was registered vide ADR No. 35 of 2006. 5 After making enquiry into the said case, the police came to the conclusion that no repair or alteration work of the building was in 3 cr-wp-2867-10 progress at the relevant time. It was also observed that building is not in a dilapidated condition and the incident had occurred all of a sudden. Writ Petition No. 664 of 2008 came to be filed by the complainant before this Court which was lateron withdrawn and the complainant was directed to approach the Magistrate. Hence, the complainant filed private complaint under Section 304-A of IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, M.E.C.R.No. 6 of 2008 came to be registered at Gamdevi Police Station on 6.9.2008. The police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet. According to them, the petitioner has not taken due precaution and he did not adopt any measures and hence, the incident had occurred. 6 Admittedly, the petitioner is the landlord of the said building. However, he is not the only landlord of the said building and there are ten other persons who jointly hold the property. The petitioner was not residing on 5th floor of the building at the relevant time. But the said flat was occupied by some tenant. In fact, the petitioner was not even residing in the said building at the relevant time. 4 cr-wp-2867-10 7 The learned advocate for the complainant-respondent no.1 states that the dispute has been amicably settled hence, the FIR be quashed. The complainant is present in person and he stated that today amount of Rs. 4 lakhs has been paid to him vide Pay Order dated 8.10.2010 bearing No. 005782 for Rs. 4 lakhs drawn on Bank of India of Cumbala Hill Branch, hence, he prayed that he does not wish to proceed with the prosecution and the said CR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. Affidavit of the complainant to that effect has been tendered which is taken on record and marked `X ’ for identification. 8 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 5 cr-wp-2867-10 the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law". 9 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. 10 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 11 M.E.C.R. No. 6 of 2008 of Gamdevi Police Station Mumbai, and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 77/PS/2009, is quashed. 12 Petition disposed of. 6 cr-wp-2867-10 [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]