5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3982 OF 2010 Bharat Kalu Vaze & Anr .. Applicants Vs Gansh Padmakar Patil & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Ganesh Mohite for the Applicants Mr. V.V. Purwant for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 29th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-original accused, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1-original complainant & respondent no. 2- injured witness and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants have preferred this application for quashing of FIR No. 116 of 2008 of Vishnu Nagar Police Station which was lodged by respondent no. 1-original complainant against the applicants. The said case is under Sections 307 and 326 read with 34 of IPC and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. 1 5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc 3. Learned advocate for the respondents i.e original complainant and injured witness stated that they are related to the accused. Due to intervention of elders, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. He also states that if the FIR is not quashed, it would cause serious enmity between both sides which would also disturb the peace and tranquility in the locality. It would also cause friction among the common relations of the accused and the complainant. Hence, he prayed that the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto be quashed. 4. The learned advocate for the applicants further submitted that the facts are not such as to attract Section 307 of IPC. I have perused the injury certificates of both the injured persons i.e the complainant Ganesh Patil and Shambu Patil. Shambu Patil has sustained only one CLW on frontal region without any underlying fracture. Ganesh Patil sustained two injuries; the first being a circular would near the elbow joint, which is not a vital part of the body and the second injury is tenderness over face, abdomen and back due to kicks and punches. Looking to the medical certificates, I find much merit in the contention that the injuries are not such as to attract Section 307 of IPC. 5. The learned APP submitted that the applicants have been 2 5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc involved in other offences and hence FIR should not be quashed. To support her contention that the applicants have a criminal record, the learned APP pointed out that one NC No. 938 of 2010 is registered against applicant no. 1 at Vishnunagar Police Station under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and action under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been taken against him. As far as, other cases are concerned, it is seen that it pertains to some other parties and none of them are cross cases. As far as the present cases are concerned, it is a cross case. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 had preferred Criminal Application No. 3981 of 2010 for quashing of C.R. NO. 118 of 2008 of Vishnunagar Police Station lodged against them by applicant no. 1 - Bharat Vaze. C.R. No. 118 of 2008 is under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. The said C.R. has already been quashed on account of amicable settlement. In such case, allowing the prosecution in this C.R. to continue would give rise to resentment and ill will which will seriously hamper good relations between both sides who are closely related. Both parties have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves. Moreover, both sides are also closely related to each other which is not the position in other cases. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants invited my attention to various orders passed by 3 5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc this Court wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. It was pointed out that in the below mentioned two cases, FIR under Section 307 and the proceedings came to be quashed.In Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All.M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009, Santosh Kaluram Landge & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors, this Court [ Coram : Mr. B.R. Gavai, J] by order dated 4th March 2010, quashed the FIR and proceedings in a case under Section 307 of IPC. 7. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the 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 over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more 4 5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc 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". 8 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. 9. The ratio of above decisions squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the FIR filed lodged against the applicants should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 5 5a. cr appln 3982-10.doc 10. In the result, FIR No. 116 of 2008 of Vishnunagar Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 11. Application is allowed in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 6