2. cr appln 3516-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3516 OF 2010 Samsher Alam Shaikh .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondent Mr. Rajendra Rathod i/b Mr. Rahul Dangle for the Applicant Ms. Shabana Shah for respondent no. 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 14th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant-original complainant, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-original accused no. 1 and learned APP for the State. Applicant- original complainant is present in person. 2. The complainant has preferred this application for quashing of C.R. No. 372 of 1998 of Antop Hill Police Station which was lodged by him against respondent no. 2 on 27.10.1998. The said case is under Section 307 of IPC. It pertains to Sessions Case No. 1009 of 2000 and it is now pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant states that the 1 2. cr appln 3516-10.doc matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and respondent no. 2, hence the FIR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. The applicant-original complainant who is present in the court states that the FIR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed as the matter has been amicably settled between him and respondent no. 2. 4. On going through the injury certificate of the complainant, it is seen that though the complainant has sustained five injuries, they were all on hands and legs. None of the injuries were on the vital parts of the body. The nature of injury is as under : i. Contused lacerated wound over the right elbow bone deep. ii.Contused lacerated wound over the right frontal region. iii.Contused lacerated wound over the left forearm. iv.Contused lacerated wound over right dorsum (hand and wrists) with tendon exposed. v. Contused lacerated wound over the left leg 6 cm bone deep. Looking to the injuries sustained by the complainant, it cannot be said that the case would fall under Section 307 of IPC. 2 2. cr appln 3516-10.doc 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. It was pointed out that in the below mentioned two cases, FIR under Section 307 and the proceedings came to be quashed. In Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All.M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 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. 6. 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 3 2. cr appln 3516-10.doc 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". 7 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 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. 8. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by applicant-original complainant should not be quashed. Thus, 4 2. cr appln 3516-10.doc in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed. 9. In the result, C.R. No. 372 of 1998 of Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 1009 of 2010 pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai is quashed. 10 Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5