1 ndm 39 appln.54.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2010 Natwarsinh Laxmansinh Chauhan. ... APPLICANT Vs. Sandeep Natwarsinh Chauhan and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ­­­­­­­­ Mr. Shrish Gupte i/b Mr. Subodh Desai for Applicant. Mr. M. Kocharekar for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.A. Nalawade for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mrs. A.T. Jhaveri, APP for State. ­­­­­­­­ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 01 st April, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 By way of present Application, the Applicant prays for quashing the criminal proceedings registered vide C.R. No. 285 of 2009. 3 The FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.1, who is the father of the Applicant. The complaint was lodged by the 2 Respondent No.1 on 22 nd October, 2009, alleging therein that when his wife was alone at home, two boys had entered into the house at Silvassa and that those boys attacked his wife Kajol by using knife. The present Applicant was subsequently implicated in the crime on the basis of the suspicion expressed by Respondent No.1 that since the present Applicant, who was opposed to his marriage with Kajol, the attack might have been instigated by the present Applicant. 4 The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that his suspicion regarding his father’s involvement was without basis. It has been stated that the relations between the Applicant, Respondent No.1 and his wife Kajol are now harmonious and that in order to maintain cordial relations, the proceedings be quashed against the Applicant. 5 Mr. D.A. Nalawade appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposes the application. The learned counsel submits that the present Applicant is involved in a crime against a society and therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel submits that in the present case now the charge­sheet is also filed and therefore, the application is not tenable. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Ravishankar Prasad and ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351, merely because the parties have settled their dispute cannot be a ground for quashing, since an element of public nature is 3 involved in the crime. 6 The Apex Court in the Case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] has observed as under : “6. We need to emphasise 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 mater 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.” 7 Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Ravishankar Prasad and ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 351 is concerned, in the said case, the application for quashing was filed after 90 witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court. In the said case, there were also allegations against the bank officers under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In the facts of the said case, the Apex Court found that the High Court had erred in quashing the proceedings at such a belated stage. 4 8 I find that the facts in the present case are more near to the facts in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582. The learned trial Judge while releasing the applicant on bail has found that there was no material to implicate the present applicant with the crime in question. It appears that the implication of the present Applicant was on the basis of suspicion expressed by his son. However, now the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The father and the son are now harmoniously living. No purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the present Applicant. It would unnecessarily come in the way of cordial relations between the father and the son. 9 The Applicant and the Respondent No.1 are personally present in the Court and they reiterate the fact regarding amicable settlement. 10 Insofar as the objections of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding filing of the charge­sheet is concerned, the charge­sheet has been filed subsequent to the notice being issued by this Court in the present application. As already observed hereinabove, the learned trial Judge himself on the basis of the perusal of the papers has come to a finding that there is no material to connect the present Applicant with the crime in question. 5 11 In that view of the matter, I find that no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the Applicant. The FIR No. 285 of 2009 and the subsequent charge­sheet are therefore, quashed and set aside insofar as the present Applicant is concerned. 12 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]