APL. 781-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 781 OF 2011 Ankesh Dinesh Shahra ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents *** Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with S. Garud & A. Surve i/b Jayakar & Partners, for the Applicant. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Parvez Menon, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ainul Imamuddin Haq, Respondent No. 2 in person *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 who is the victim and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. This is a criminal application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint, which is registered by the Marine Drive Police Station, vide C. R. No. 63 of 2011 for the offences punishable under S. 279, 338 of I.P. Code read with S. 134(a) and (b) and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. It is submitted that the incident in question took place on APL. 781-11 - 2 - 18th April, 2011 at 3.30 a.m. According to the applicant, when he was driving his vehicle, the respondent No. 2 was on a motor-cycle. In order to avoid a stone which was on the road, respondent No. 2 took a sudden right turn and as a result the vehicle which was driven by the applicant collided with the motor-cycle of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was taken initially to the G. T. Hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to the Bombay Hospital by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has taken care of the respondent No. 2’s medical treatment and as a result of the said treatment, the leg of respondent No. 2 which was amputated was replaced by an artificial limb and they have also paid monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-. The applicant and respondent No. 2 have arrived at a settlement. A copy of the said settlement is annexed to this application. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and he has stated before us that he has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. His advocate also submitted that an affidavit has also been filed by him wherein he has stated that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 3. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably among themselves and an adequate compensation has been paid to respondent No.2 and he has been practically rehabilitated by the applicant herein, in our view, there is no reason why said FIR should not be quashed. Firstly, the offences which are mentioned in the FIR, though all of them are not compoundable, there is no mandatory provision of imprisonment for the said offences. Secondly, taking into consideration the manner in which the incident has taken place, it does APL. 781-11 - 3 - appear prima facie that even if the averments which are made in the application and the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 are taken at their face value, no offence, as alleged, is made out. 4. The Apex Court in the case of – Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 1 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2 has held that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is entitled to quash the complaint, if it comes to the conclusion that the said offence is a personal one and it is not opposed to public policy. Under the circumstances, therefore, the criminal application is allowed in term of prayer Clause (a) and is accordingly disposed of. The bail bond of the applicant also stands cancelled. . Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968; 2 AIR 2008 SC 1969