AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1448 OF 2009 Santosh Samal ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Ms. Priya Dave i/b Ms. Madhubala M. Dave for the petitioner. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner is accused in FIR No.568 of 2008 registered by the MIDC Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, “the IPC). Respondent 2 is the complainant. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed AJN 2 that the said FIR No.568 of 2008 be quashed as the parties have mutually settled the dispute. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent 2-complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. We note that accused Santosh Samal and complainant Mahesh Tanna are present in our court. They have told us that they have settled the dispute and they have no grievance against each other. Affidavit is filed by the complainant on 5/6/2009. In the said affidavit, the complainant has reiterated that he has settled the dispute with the accused. The resolution passed by the Gold Star Corporate Solutions Private Limited authorizing respondent 2 to settle the dispute is also annexed to the affidavit. 3. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court was concerned with the compromise entered into by husband and wife. The AJN 3 question was whether the High Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, “the Code”) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India could quash criminal proceedings where non-compoundable offences were involved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers and Section 320 of the Code which provides for compounding of offences does not affect or limit the High Court’s powers. The Supreme Court added that this power has to be used with care and its exercise would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. 4. In this connection, reference may be made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 856. In that case, the Full Bench has held that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court can quash compoundable as well as non-compoundable offences. But, it may be AJN 4 appropriate for the Court to examine the impact of such an order upon the system of administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. The Full Bench has further laid down that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code shall not be such as to harm legitimate expectations of the people and the society, that the persons committing offence are expeditiously brought to trial and if found guilty are adequately punished. 5. Having perused the complaint, we are of the opinion that the complaint involves purely an individual dispute. It does not have any repercussions on the society at large. Hence, in the light of the above judgments, we see no reason why the present complaint should not be quashed. Hence, complaint at Exhibit-”A” being FIR No.568 of 2008 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai under Section 408 of the IPC is quashed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for AJN 5 respondent 2 makes a statement that respondent 2 shall donate an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]