1 cr-wp-3161-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 3161 OF 2010 Arshad Akbar Maniyar ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. N.V.Gangal Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr. G.M.Savagave Adv. for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. Complainant is present. Parents of Darshana (deceased) are also present in Court. 2 The applicant is seeking quashing of CR No. II-45 of 2010 of Jawhar Police Station. The said case is under Section 304 of IPC. 2 cr-wp-3161-10 3 The facts briefly stated are that Darshana aged 17 years was suffering from high fever, hence, she was brought to the dispensary of the petitioner on 6.9.2010. The petitioner prescribed some medicines and gave an injection to Darshana but she died on 8.7.2010. 4 The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant states that the CR was filed under erroneous belief and the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the respondent no.2 has no objection to the FIR and the proceedings being quashed. He has tendered affidavit to the above effect which is taken on record and marked `X-1' for identification. Parents of the victim Darshana (deceased) are also present and they also state that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have no objection to the FIR being quashed. Affidavit of parents of Darshana to that effect, has been tendered which is taken on record and marked as `X-2' for identification. Complainant and parents of Darshana state that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the FIR be quashed. 5 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 3 cr-wp-3161-10 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 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". 6 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 4 cr-wp-3161-10 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. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 8 In the result, C.R. No. II-45 of 2010 of Jawhar Police Station and proceedings relating thereto, is quashed. 9 Petition disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]