..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2008 Bhupesh Ramtej Singh @ Thakur and 2 Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Shailesh Wanmali Patil and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rahul Kate, Adv. for the respondents. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orig.accused Nos.1, 2 & 3, the learned Advocate for the respondent-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant who is the sole injured witness is present in Court. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of Criminal Case No.382 of 2005 which is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Kalyan and J.C. Case No.265 of 2005 pending before the Juvenile Court, Bhiwandi. The said case pertains to C.R. No.I-244 of 2005 of ..(2).. Mahatma Phule Chowk police station, Kalyan. The said case is mainly under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner No.3 is a juvenile, his case was separate and numbered as J.C. No.265 of 2005 and it is pending before the Juvenile Court, Bhiwandi. 3. The learned Advocate for the complainant has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and he has prayed that the proceedings be quashed against the petitioners. The complainant has also tendered affidavit in which he has stated that the matter has been amicably settled and he does not wish to continue with the prosecution against the petitioners and the case be quashed. 4. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the injuries on the person of 2nd respondent as mentioned in the injury certificate, it was obvious that section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was not at all attracted and at the most Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code could have been applied. 5. The prayer in this application is for quashing an offence which is non-compoundable. The Apex Court ..(3).. has held that the powers of this Court under section 482 of the said Code are not limited or affected by the constraints of provisions of Section 320 of the said Code. The powers of this Court under Section 482 of the said Code are independent and in a given case the powers can be exercised to quash proceedings where allegation is of commission of an offence which cannot be compounded under section 320 of the said Code. 6. The quashing in this case is sought on the basis of an amicable settlement between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. In the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.))] (S.C.))] (S.C.))], the Apex Court exercised power under section 482 of the said Code for quashing the prosecution for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of settlement between the husband and wife. The Apex Court observed that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. However, whether the power is to be exercised or not depends on the facts ..(4).. of each case. 7. In the case of Ram Kashiram Salvi & Ors. Vs. Ram Kashiram Salvi & Ors. Vs. Ram Kashiram Salvi & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 426] State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 426] State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 426] this Court exercised the power under section 482 of the said Code where offences alleged were under sections 326, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and quashed the case. So also in the case of Mr.Vakil Palani Harijan & others vs. State of Mr.Vakil Palani Harijan & others vs. State of Mr.Vakil Palani Harijan & others vs. State of Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another reported in 2008 ALL 2008 ALL 2008 ALL M.R.(Cri) 2537 M.R.(Cri) 2537 M.R.(Cri) 2537, this Court quashed a case under Section 326 of IPC mainly on account of amicable settlement between the parties. 8. On perusal of the medical certificate, it is seen that there is only one injury i.e. CLW on the head. There was no gaping, tenderness or swelling. Looking to the injury, it is not possible to accept that Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is applicable and it appears that at the most section 324 of Indian Penal Code would be applicable. 9. It is obvious that considering the peculiar facts of this case, the chances of an ultimate conviction are very bleak. Hence, no useful purpose ..(5).. is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. In my view a case is made out for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Looking to the injury and the affidavit filed by the complainant who is also the sole injured witness, in my view, a case is made out for quashing. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 7(b). (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)