1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1174 OF 2010 Ms. Mona Vyomesh Mehta ..... Petitioner. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents. Ms. Daksha Shah for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr. Kumar Biswa for Respondent No.3. None for Respondent No.4. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3. None appears on behalf of Respondent No.4, though he is served. 2. Petitioner was driving a Maruti Swift Car on 2.8.2009 at about 7.30 a.m. and was going to attend her coaching classes situated at Andheri. According to the Petitioner, at Milan Junction, Respondent No.3 came on bicycle from a wrong direction and his bicycle dashed on the upper side of the front wheel of the car at driver’s side and he fell on the 2 divider. One another person, namely Respondent No.4 was also hurt in the said incident. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were given medical treatment. Respondent No.4 was discharged immediately after he was given the first aid. Respondent No.3 was treated in the hospital and was discharged after two days. The FIR was lodged against the Petitioner vide C.R. No.299 of 2009 for the offence punishable under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation was over, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the parties have settled the dispute and Respondent No.3 has no objection if the complaint is quashed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the criminal trial may not be over for atleast 10 years. Petitioner is of a marriageable age and is likely to go abroad. Her father has paid for treatment of Respondent 3. Respondent No.4 is a rag picker and could not be traced despite of best efforts taken by the Petitioner. Public notice was given by the Petitioner and he was served by publication. However, none appears on behalf of Respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 is present in Court. His Counsel made a statement that he has no objection for quashing the complaint. Complainant is also present in court. He has stated that all the expenses of treatment of Respondent No.3 have been borne by the Petitioner’s father. 4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, 3 in my view, it will be appropriate if the said complaint is quashed since no objection has been given by the complainant and the person injured in the said incident. I have also seen the medical papers which disclose that no major injury was sustained by Respondent No.3. Perusal of the medical papers and medical certificate show that there was diffuse aronal injury Grade III and that there was no Pallor/oedema/cynesis/clubbing. In view of the medical certificate, it appears that the accident was minor accident. No purpose will be served in keeping the criminal trial pending and, in any case, if the complainant and injured person are examined, since they are not supporting the prosecution, the case would end in acquittal of the present Petitioner. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for quashing the said complaint. 5. Petition is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4