1 cr­apln­4391­10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4391 OF 2010 Gopal Satyanarayan Reddy ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.V.Purwant Adv. for applicant Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr. Balwant V.Patole Adv. for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned APP. 2 The applicant is seeking quashing of CR No. 206 of 2009 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur. The said case is under Sections 420, 409 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3 The learned advocate for the applicant pointed out that the 2 cr­apln­4391­10 FIR came to be quashed in relation to three co-accused as per order dated 3.5.2010 in Criminal Application No. 1630 of 2010. Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has filed affidavit of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 in his affidavit has stated that he was under an impression that the present applicant is employee of the main accused, however, after having come to know that the applicant is similarly situated as the complainant, he has no objection if the FIR against the applicant is quashed. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 has been tendered to that effect which is taken on record and marked `X ’ for identification. The counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant submitted that in view of the affidavit of complainant, the FIR be quashed. 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 3 cr­apln­4391­10 overburdened 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 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of affidavit filed by the complainant, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 4 cr­apln­4391­10 7 In the result, C.R.No. 206 of 2009 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur and proceedings relating thereto, is quashed. 8 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]