1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3764 OF 2011 Arvind Bhaskar Gode and others Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3765 OF 2011 Pravin Pandurang Nipurte and others Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for petitioners in WP No.3764 of 2011 and for Respondent nos.2 to 5 in WP No.3765 of 2011. Mr.R.S.Kate for petitioners in WP No.3765 of 2011 and for respondent nos.2 to 5 in WP No.3764 of 2011. Mr.Rajesh More and Mr.D.R.More, APPs for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 13th December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the complainant and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the injured eye witnesses in CR No.I-75 of 2004 registered at Shahapur Police Station. Respondent nos.2 to 5 are the accused in said CR.. Petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.3765 of 2011 is the complainant and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are the injured eye witnesses in CR No.I-74/2004 registered at Shahapur Police Station. Respondent nos.2 to 5 are the accused in the said CR.. CR No.I-75/2004 is registered under sections 2 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, whereas, CR No.I-74/2004 is registered under sections 326, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC.. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3764 of 2011 are the respondent nos.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.3765 of 2011 and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3765 of 2011 are the respondents in Writ Petition No.3764 of 2011. 3. Both the above CRs are registered in respect of one incident at village Sakhroli, Tal. Shahapur. In respect of the said incident, cross complaints are filed by the respective petitioner no.1 in both these writ petitions. After completion of the investigation in both the CRs, charge sheet is filed before the learned Magistrate, at Shahapur and the cases are pending for trial. 4. The petitioners and the respondents are relatives inter-se and during pendency of the criminal cases, they have settled their disputes amicably. The petitioners to that effect have also filed purshis on 20th April 2010 before the learned JMFC, Shahapur stating that they have settled the disputes amicably and they have no grievance against each other and they want to maintain good relations in future. They accordingly prayed that the said cases be disposed of by allowing the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 5 to compromise the cases. The learned Magistrate did not pass any order on this purshis. Even other wise, the charge under sections 320 and 326 is not compoundable. Therefore, they have filed present writ petitions for compounding by consent under provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The petitioners as well as respondent nos.2 to 5 in both the petitions are present in the Court. The affidavit are also filed by respondent nos.2 to 5 in both the writ petitions. They have reiterated and reaffirmed what is stated earlier and they have no objection for quashing the criminal cases filed against them. On query, the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 5 in both the petitions have stated that they have gone through the contents of writ petitions and affidavits filed and they 3 have no objection to quash the criminal cases pending against them. 6. The Apex Court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR-2003-SC-1386 held that in the event of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the FIR under section 498 can be quashed, even though, the offence is not compoundable in terms of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below : "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would b e counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non- exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter-XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(5)- L.J.Soft.46. 7. It can thus be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaints it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 8. In vie of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan 4 Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4-SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their disputes. 9. Rule is thus made absolute in both the petitions in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each. The costs are to be paid by the petitioners in respective petitions by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of present petitions. (RANJIT MORE, J.)