1 cr-apln-3979 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 3979 OF 2010 Shanti Devi Minni Widow of Late Sikhar Chand Minni ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Sauvik Nandy i/b Sagar Talekar Adv. for applicant Mr. R.R.Verma i/b Mr. A.M.Saraogi Adv. for Respondent no.2 Smt. A.A.Mane APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. Respondent no.2- original complainant is present in person. 2 A private complaint came to be filed by respondent no.2 2 cr-apln-3979 against the applicant before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The said case was numbered as 168/Misc. 98 of 1998. It is now numbered as CC No. 30/SW/05. The case is under Sections 406, 409, 420, r.w. 114 and 34 of IPC. 3 The respondent no.2-original complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled with the applicant and he has no further grievance against the applicant, hence proceedings in relation to the applicant, be quashed. He further states that two pay orders amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- have been handed over by the applicant to him by way of full and final settlement of the claim between him and the applicant. 4 In a decision of the Supreme Court in 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 3 cr-apln-3979 matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly ovberburdened 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". In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 5 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 4 cr-apln-3979 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. 6 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 7 In the result, Misc. Case No. 168/Misc. /98 of 1998 which is re-numbered as CC No.30/SW/05 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai is quashed. 8 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]