1 cr-wp-2844-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2844 OF 2010 Shri. Haji Baitullah Babullah Khan ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. Vinod Mishra Adv. for Petitioner Mr. V.B.Konde-Dehsmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-original complainant, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original accused and the learned APP for the State. Complainant is present in Court. 2 The complainant is seeking quashing of CR No. 3 of 2010 of Kurar Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 363 of IPC. The case of the petitioner is that if the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto, are continued, it would come in the way of marriage of 2 cr-wp-2844-10 his daughter. He has stated that he does not have any grievance against the accused and he does not wish to continue the prosecution against the accused of kidnapping his daughter and prayed that the FIR be quashed. 3 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 overburdened 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". 4 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of 3 cr-wp-2844-10 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. 5 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 6 In the result, C.R. No. 3 of 2010 of Kurar Police Station, Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto, is quashed. 7 Petition disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 cr-wp-2844-10