(1) CR.APP.1962.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1962 OF 2009 Balasaheb s/o Vilas Dange Age : 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o At Lohara, Post Shirala, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicant Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served upon GP, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) 2] Ranveer S/o Manikrao Gaikwad, Age : 29 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Lohara, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1963 OF 2009 1] Ranveer S/o Manikrao Gaikwad, Age : 29 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Lohara, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad 2] Hanumant S/o Motilal Pisal, Age : 34 years, Occu.: Service, R/o As above 3] Sudhir s/o Sakharam Bagal, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Bhosare (Pisal) Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur .. Applicants (2) CR.APP.1962.2009 Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served upon GP High Court Bench at Aurangabad) 2] Balasaheb S/o Vilas Dange Age : 32 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o At Lohara, Post Shirala, Tq. Parnada, Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondents In Cr. App. 1962 of 2009: Mr. S.G. Salgare, Advocate for the Applicant Smt. S.B. Wadmare, APP for the Respondent-State In Cr. App. 1963 of 2009: Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. J.S. Gavane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 2] Both these applications can be decided by this common order:- (3) CR.APP.1962.2009 . The applicants are seeking quashing of FIRs lodged against them. The applicant in Criminal Application no. 1962 of 2009 is accused of committing offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). The complainant in his case is the respondent no.2 Ranveer, whereas Criminal Application no. 1963 of 2009 is filed by Ranveer and two others, who are seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 Balasaheb, who alleged that they had robbed him and thereby allegedly committed offence under section 395, 366, 341 IPC etc. It is thus clear that these two groups lodged complaints against each other on 6th April, 2009 and their complaints made basis of the FIRs and crime registered by Paranda Police Station. 3] The parties now filed compromise pursis, saying that they have amicably settled their dispute and that they wish to withdraw their complaints (4) CR.APP.1962.2009 against each others. The question is whether complaints regarding serious offences, such as offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and under section 395 IPC, can be compounded invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the amicable settlement recorded by the parties. Similar situation arose before this Court in the case of Mansur A. Khan V. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 1911. This Court was considering, as to whether in view of the amicable settlement between the parties complaint under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act can be quashed invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the light of the facts of that case, held that no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue and therefore, allowed the application. (5) CR.APP.1962.2009 4] In the present case, complainant Ranveer is present before the Court in person. He has filed the affidavit, in which he stated that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and he said he would not pursue the complaint he had lodged. In view of this affidavit, it is now certain that Ranveer-the complainant would not support the imputation made in the FIR and ultimately the case would fail. 5] Having heard the counsels for the parties and in view of the fact that the parties are present before the Court, I do not doubt the sincerity and genuineness of the compromise that has arrived at between the parties. I am, therefore of the view that even in this case, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the Criminal prosecution to continue. 6] Similar is the case when the complainant Balasaheb stated that he would not pursue his (6) CR.APP.1962.2009 complaint against Ranveer and others. He said he has also amicably settled the dispute and would not pursue his complaint. The Police on his complaint had registered offence under section 395, 365, 366, 421 IPC. Out of these offences, offence under section 395 and 365 are of serious nature, but surprisingly though the FIR was received and the offence was registered, none of the accused were arrested. They made applications for anticipatory bail and during the pendency of such applications, it seems there was amicable settlement between the parties and with the result the applicants-accused were granted anticipatory bail. If the allegations are under section 395 and 365 IPC there was otherwise no possibility of grant of anticipatory bail. It seems, the allegations made by Balasaheb against Ranveer and others were rather exaggerated. Essentially there was a dispute between the parties which was personal in nature. No public policy was involved in the alleged dispute. (7) CR.APP.1962.2009 7] Looking to the genuineness of the compromise, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to continue. In view of this, both the applications deserve to be allowed. Crime nos. 10 of 2009, and 33 of 2009, both registered by Paranda Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad stands quashed. 8] Both the applications are allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Issuance of Certified copy expedited. Sd/-- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/24june9/cr1962.09