[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2462 OF 2008 Sarvesh Radheshyam Shahare ..Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Kinjal Mayur Shah and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.R.Chitnis Senior Advocate for Petitioner Ms.Poonam Tahaliyani Adv. for Respondent no.2 Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused, the learned advocate for respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant is present in Court. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of CR No.229 of 2008 registered at Powai Police Station, Mumbai. The case is under Section 67 of Information and Technology Act and under Section 509 of IPC. The case is numbered as CC No.496/PW/2008 and is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Mumbai. The case of the complainant is that she received some obscene e-mails from the petitioner. [-2-] 3. The learned advocate for the complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and complainant does not wish to proceed with her complaint any further. Complainant has also filed affidavit to the effect that the dispute has been amicably settled and she does not wish to pursue with the prosecution any further, hence, she has prayed that permission be granted to quash the present matter. 4. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and Jagdish Chanana and Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, others Vs. State of Haryana and another, others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968. AIR 2008 SC 1968. AIR 2008 SC 1968. The said case was under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r.w. 34 of IPC. In the said case also, matter was amicably settled between the parties. The Supreme Court observed therein that "In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile [-3-] exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12.3.2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings." Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582 (2008) 4 SCC 582. In the said case it is observed that "it is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11.1.2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out". It is further observed that "We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in the dispute where the question involved is [-4-] 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 overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised 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 the present case, the dispute is purely a personal one between these two contesting parties. There is absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of allegations made against the accused. Looking to the fact that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the said case. Hence, in the interest of justice, CR No.229 of 2008 of Powai Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 6. Petition is disposed of. [-5-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]