cr­­apln­2186­10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2186 OF 2010 Ms. Neetu D/o Banarasi Sharma ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ---- Mr. A.M.Saraogi Adv. for Applicant Mr. J.P.Kharge APP for Respondent no.1-State Mr. Sushil Chaurasia Adv. for Respondent no.3 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 3 Deepmala Sharma mother of victim girl Shreya is present in person. 2. This application is filed by the applicant-original accused for quashing the FIR No. 191 of 2009 of Charkop 1 cr­­apln­2186­10.doc Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under sections 307 of IPC. It pertains to Sessions Case No. 27 of 2010 and it is now pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. 3. The brief facts of the case as revealed from the FIR are as under: On 1.10.09 the applicant was seen with a small girl Shreya on a bridge on a nala in Gorai. She made the girl sit on the parapet of the bridge and she gave a push to the girl as a result of which the girl fell in the mud. The applicant ran away from the spot. One Karimkhan saw the incident. It is the prosecution case that Karimkhan loudly shouted “Ye Kya Dal Ke Gayee”. Meanwhile one Mr. Sayyed Dewanbabu took the girl out from the mud and called the police. The police took them to the Police Station where they found the applicant already present. Karimkhan identified the applicant as the lady who pushed the child. 4. Respondent No.3 is present in the Court. She has stated that the applicant is her real sister. Her sister is residing with her. She has further stated that she has no grievance at all against her sister. The FIR was registered on account of misunderstanding and in order to maintain amicable relations, the FIR be quashed. She has also filed 2 cr­­apln­2186­10.doc affidavit, stating that the FIR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. 5. My attention is drawn to the statement of Mr. Sayyed Deewanbabu. His garage was situated next to the scrap shop of Karimkhan. Gorai nala was infront of his shop. He has stated that at about 4.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. he heard a sound and Karimkhan shouted and told him “Baccha Gir Gaya” (child fell down) and Karimkhan ran in the direction of the bridge. He also ran towards the nala and took out a small girl (Shreya) from the mud in the nala. Thus, the statement of Mr. Sayyed Diwanbabu shows that Karimkhan shouted that girl fell down in nala (creek). This shows that the girls was not pushed by anyone due to which she fell in the mud but she fell of her own accord in the mud. Prima facie, on going through the material on record, it does not appear to be a case under Section 307 of IPC. 6. The statement of respondent no.3 Smt. Dipmala the mother of Shreya was recorded by the police. She has stated that her sister Neetu i.e. present applicant is suffering from epilepsy ailment called hysteria and she was taking treatment from a Psychiatrist. On account of this ailment, whenever, she had fits, she did not know what she was doing. She has specifically stated in the statement that it must be 3 cr­­apln­2186­10.doc on account of fits that some incident may have occurred. 7. Smt. Dipmala stated that after the incident, she spoke to her daughter and she learnt that incident was purely accidental in nature. She stated that her daughter was very naughty and due to this, she may have slipped from the hands of the applicant. On seeing that Shreya fell in the mud, the applicant ran to get help. She further stated that her sister is suffering from psychiatric problems. She herself is taking care of her sister and she has brought up and educated her sister and now she is taking care of her. There is no one else to look after her sister. She submitted that she has no grievance against her sister and the FIR be quashed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and respondent no. 2 invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the concerned party was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. My attention was invited to the decision in Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All.M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, wherein on account of amicable settlement offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 4 cr­­apln­2186­10.doc 2009, Santosh Kaluram Landge & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors, this Court [ Coram : Mr. B.R. Gavai, J] by order dated 4th March 2010, quashed the FIR and proceedings in a case under Section 307 of IPC. 9. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the 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 over burdened 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". 10. 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 5 cr­­apln­2186­10.doc 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. 11. In view of the above judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why FIR and proceedings should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the peculiar facts of this case, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 12. In the result, C.R. No. 191 of 2009 of Charkop Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 27 of 2010 pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai is quashed. 13. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 6