5.cr wp 2202-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2202 OF 2010 Madhumati Vinod Mehta .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondent Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co for the petitioner Ms. Sushma Nagraj i/b M/s. Bharucha & Partners for respondent no. 2 Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2-original complainant is present in person. 2. The petitioner-original accused is seeking quashing of MECR 2 of 2006 of Malbar Hill Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto. 3 The petitioner is the mother in law of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 was married to Rasesh, son of the 1 5.cr wp 2202-10.doc Petitioner. Rasesh expired on 30th January, 2004. Thereafter, some dispute arose between respondent no. 2 and the petitioner, hence complaint came to be lodged by respondent no. 2 before learned Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. The said Court referred the matter to Malbar Hill Police Station for investigation where it was registered as MECR No. 2 of 2006. The said case is under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 509, 120B read with 34 of IPC. The charge sheet has been filed in the said case and it is now pending before learned Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon and is numbered as Criminal Case No. 17/PW of 2006/2007. 4. Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 states that there was some civil dispute also between the parties which was pending before this Court and in the said matter, Consent Terms came to be filed by the parties. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 states that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the case be quashed. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. She states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR and proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 5 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, 2 5.cr wp 2202-10.doc 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". 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. 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 3 5.cr wp 2202-10.doc 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. 8 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 9 M.E.C.R. No. 2 of 2006 of Malbar Hill Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 17/PW of 2006/2007 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon is quashed. 10. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 5.cr wp 2202-10.doc 5