22. cri appln 4808-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4808 OF 2010 Suresh M. Patkar & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. B.G. Tangsali for the Applicants Mr. B.R. Patil for Respondent No. 2 Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused nos. 3, 4 and 5, learned advocate for respondent no. 2-original complainant and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2-original complainant is present in person. 2 The applicants are seeking quashing of C.R. No. I-109/2009 of Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai lodged by respondent no. 2. The said case is under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. 3 Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 states the 1 22. cri appln 4808-10.doc parties have amicably settled the dispute, hence the case be quashed. Respondent No.2 who is present in Court also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the case be quashed. He has also filed affidavit stating therein that he has no grievance against the applicants and the case be quashed. It is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 4. 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 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". 2 22. cri appln 4808-10.doc In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR 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. 5 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. 6 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. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of 3 22. cri appln 4808-10.doc amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 8 C.R. No. I-109/2009 of Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto is quashed qua the applicants i.e original accused nos. 3, 4 and 5. 9. Application disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 22. cri appln 4808-10.doc 5