1 cr-wp-2806-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2806 OF 2010 Mrs. Kherunisha Gulzar Warsi and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr..Respondents .... Mr. B.D.Chauhan Adv. for Petitioners Mr. P.S.Singh Adv. for Respondent no.2 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, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and the learned APP for the State. Petitioners and respondent no.2-complainant are present in person. 2 The respondent no.2 was married to the son of petitioner no.1 on 30.6.2002. The petitioner no.1 is the mother in law of respondent no.2, petitioner no.2 is the brother in law of the respondent no.2, petitioner no.3 is the 2 cr-wp-2806-10 sister in law of the respondent no.2. Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between them. On account of this dispute, FIR No. 69 of 2003 came to be lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioners. The said case i.e. Case No. 513/P/2003 is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court Kurla, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 498A, 354, 506-II, 323 r.w. 34 of IPC. The petitioners and respondent no.2 are now seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are seeking quashing of the said FIR and proceedings relating thereto. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 tendered affidavit of respondent no.2 to the above effect which is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 4 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 3 cr-wp-2806-10 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". 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 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers. 4 cr-wp-2806-10 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the affidavit of respondent no.2 filed before this Court, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 8 C.R.No. 69 of 2003 of Trombay Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 513/P/2003 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court, Kurla, Mumbai, is quashed. 9 Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]