1 cr-apln-3333-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 3333 OF 2010 Shyamlal Bhagwandas Gupta and others ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Prakash Naik Adv. i/b Juris Consillis for applicant Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State Smt. Sushma Shashikant Mane for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. Mrs. Sushma Shashikant the widow of deceased Shashikant Kundlik Mane is present in person. 2 The applicants are seeking quashing of CC No. 4008/PW/2005 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The said case pertains to FIR No. 177 of 2004 of Juhu Police Station, Mumbai and it is under Section 2 cr-apln-3333-10 304-A read with Section 34 of IPC. 3 The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: The applicant no.1 was the contractor of a building which was under construction at 10th Road, Juhu, Mumbai. Applicant no.2 was one of the workers working at the site and applicant no.3 was the supervisor at the relevant time. On 18.3.2004 at about 3.20 p.m. Shri. Shashikant Kundlik husband of Mrs. Sushma, was passing by the under construction building. At that time, one iron rod slipped and fell from the under construction building and caused injuries on his head. He died on account of said injuries. 4 Smt. Sushma states that she has a young son aged about 8 years. As her husband expired in the incident, she finds it difficult to make ends meet. She has a severe financial crunch and hence, on account of financial difficulties, she has amicably settled the dispute with the builder. She is ready to accept the compensation from the builder and she prays that the case be quashed. She has stated that she has today received a Pay Order bearing No. 003971 dated 7.8.10 for Rs. 4,25,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Bandra Branch. In view of the compensation received, she will be able to educate her son and both 3 cr-apln-3333-10 she and her son will be able to lead a reasonably decent life. Otherwise, she and her son were living a hand to mouth existence. 5 In the present case, though Mrs. Sushma is not the complainant, she is the only aggrieved party in the incident as she has lost her husband in the incident. There is no other person who sustained any loss due to the incident except her. 6 Mrs. Sushma has reitereated that the case be quashed. She has filed affidavit to that effect which is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 7 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 ovberburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so 4 cr-apln-3333-10 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". 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 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 10 In the result, C.R.No. 177 of 2004 of Juhu Police Station, 5 cr-apln-3333-10 Mumbai and proceedings relating thereto i.e. CC No. pending before the 4008/PW/2005 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai is quashed. 11 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]