1 cr-apln-3577-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLIN. NO. 3577 OF 2010 Mrs. Sayed Tanveer Fatima ..Applicant Vs. Mr. Sayed Mohd.Abbas Rizvi & Ors. ..Respondents .... Smt. Deepa Malwankar i/b S.D.Patil Adv. for applicant Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C.: 1 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 3 The applicant is the first informant and on her information FIR No.51 of 2008 came to be registered at Kurla Police Station, Mumbai against the respondents. The said case is under Sections 498-A, 406 2 cr-apln-3577-10 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4 The applicant has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled and in order to maintain amicable relations and peace among all family members, 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 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 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". In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR 3 cr-apln-3577-10 under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 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 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 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-apln-3577-10 8 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 9 In the result, C.R.No. 51 of 2008 of Kurla Police Station Mumbai, is quashed. 10 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]